Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 03 1998 PC Minutes2-3-98 FEBRUARY 3, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann;Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; Mr. Dave Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Washington. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the January 20th meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. ZMA 97-13 Anthony Valente - Request to rezone approximately 0.82 acres from C-1, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. The property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 37A, is located on the west side of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Rt. 649 (Airport Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is from Rt. 29 North. Deferred from the January 13, 1998 Commission meeting. The applicant was requesting deferral to March 3, 1998. Comment was invited from the applicant and from the public. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that ZMA 97-13 be deferred to March 3, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 97-10 The Storage Center - Request to rezone approximately 0.948 acres from C-1, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A1, is located on the west side of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Route 649 (Airport Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is from Route 29 North. Deferred from the January 13, 1998 Commission meeting. The applicant was requesting deferral to March 3, 1998. Comment was invited from the applicant and from the public. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 97-10 be deferred to March 3, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. C/5" 2-3-98 ` SP 97-65 Greenwood Farm Bridge - Request for special use permit approval, in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(2), for fill in the floodplain to construct a road and bridge over Yellow Mountain Creek. The road and bridge will be to serve timbering and recreational activities of the property owner and provide access to a future homesite on the property. The property, described as Tax Map 71, parcel 2, is located on the south side of Route 250, approximately 2400 feet from the intersection with Route 690 and approximately 3000 feet from the intersection with Route 689. It is zoned RA Rural Area. The property is designated as rural areas in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant was requesting deferral to February 17, 1998. Comment was invited from the applicant and from the public. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 97-65 be deferred to February 17, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-67 CV 142 - CFW(Bellair Subdivision) - Proposal to install a telecommunications tower in Bellair Subdivision. The property, zoned R1, Residential (1 dwelling unit/acre) and EC, Entrance Corridor, and described as Tax Map 76C Section 2 Parcel 2, is located on the west side of the Route 29 By -Pass (Monacan Trail), approximately one-half mile south of the intersection of Routes 29 and 250 west (Ivy Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in Neighborhood Six, and recommended for Neighborhood Density ,. Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The report concluded: Staff opinion is that his request complies with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Although alternatives to installation of this tower exist, staff feels that negative impacts from the tower would be minor and such impacts are balanced by the benefits of increased wireless service. Therefore, staff supports this application.... Staff also recommended approval of a modification of Sec. 4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback, and approval of a waiver of the drawing of a site plan, subject to two conditions. Referring to condition No. 1 [The height of the tower shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree....] Mr. Tice asked what will happen in the future when the existing trees are taller than they are now? Ms. Thomas guessed the antenna would have to be raised, which would require an amendment to the special permit. Mr. Tice asked how realistic co -location opportunities are if there needs to be a 15-20 foot separation and the tower and antenna are already at tree height. Mr. Fritz said co -location options are limited not only by the height of the tower, but also by the bearing capacity of the wooden pole. Given the surrounding residential neighborhood, 1� 2-3-98 3 Ms. Thomas said staff would also look very closely at the visual impact as a result of any co -location. Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission is in a position to judge, from an engineering standpoint, whether or not there is a need for this tower, i.e. "is there some method of testing whether or not this tower is necessary to provide the service in a reasonable fashion?" Mr. Fritz said, currently, the staff does not have that expertise, but there is presently a Request For Personnel in the making which will allow a consultant to be hired who will advise staff, on a case -by -case basis, on issues such as need for the facility, type of facility, and options for co -location. In response to Mr. Rooker's question about PCS service providers, Mr. Fritz said there is only one PCS provider presently, but two others are considering locating in the area. Mr. Rooker concluded: So the potential exists that we would have two other PCS providers requesting towers in similar locations and who wouldn't be able to use this particular tower for co -location." Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. Mr. Fritz added that there are cellular providers also and those companies have not identified this area as needing additional service, but it may be a location where they will need to add increased capacity at some point in the future, so don't rule them out as a potential co -location down the road." In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question about the study area which was considered in finding this location, Ms. Thomas said the applicant told staff "this particular area -- south of 250 west, but north of 164, along the by-pass, is a hole where there is little or inadequate service, so any facility needs to be in that corridor." The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Whittaker. He described other areas which were considered for location of this tower, and the problems which were encountered with those areas. He offered the following additional information, and also answered Commission questions: --This service is marketed under the name Intellos, but is managed by CFW. --Intellos is the first PCS provider in the Charlottesville area and throughout western Virginia. Three towers have been built in the County (Keswick, near the airport, and Piney Mountain). --The cell site is about the size of a large suitcase, weighing about 200 lbs. It is painted white by the manufacturer, but could be painted another color. No building is required. Antennas can be placed at lower heights, though they work better if they are higher and if there is less vegetation. "But taking into consideration the environment that we are trying to deploy the network in, we think this cell site will suit our needs, will provide an adequate level of service through there, and, most importantly, have a very low visual impact on the community." --This site is as low impact as it can possibly be, without being a co -location. The co -location opportunities in this area are "very slim." --To address Mr. Tice's earlier question about potential problems as the surrounding trees grow taller, Mr. Whittaker said: "The amount of absorption that is *Mw. already going to impact this cell site at the height we are going in at is significant. I would venture to say, if there were no trees that were going to inhibit the ability of (?7 2-3-98 4 that site to perform, it would probably cover twice the area. So I would say this site is already 40% impacted by the ground vegetation. Those trees being another ten feet taller will probably not have a significant impact to the area we are trying to cover, which is, admittedly, a very small area." --On the issue of co -location opportunities, Mr. Whittaker said the pole could structurally handle several different omni antennas. The issue, however, is whether or not there will be other applicants who wish to co -locate at a lower height. --PCS service is much lower powered than cellular service. Because of the lower power, more cell sites are needed. --Other "holes" in service have been identified. It is anticipated 5 to 6 holes will need to be filled in in the Charlottesville urban marketplace, this year. --Mr. Whittaker said the applicant will continue to try to co -locate whenever possible. In response to Mr. Rooker's question about possible co -location on a public utility pole (a telephone pole), Mr. Whittaker described legal problems which have arisen in the Philadelphia area where this type of co -location has been tried. Such co -location also raises the question of whether or not PCS service is a public utility. He concluded: "The answer is 'No.' CFW has steered clear of co -locating on distribution throughout our network." --The poles are traditional power and utility poles designed to withstand high winds. Mr. Rieley asked if there are any alternatives to fencing. Mr. Whittaker said landscaping could be used instead of fencing. He said fencing is usually desired by the landowner. Mr. Fritz said fencing is addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and is primarily a safety measure. Public comment was invited. Mr. Chris Kinsick addressed the Commission. He said he thinks a fence is useless if its purpose is to prevent people from climbing the pole, because "if you can climb a pole you can climb a fence." Ms. Helen Priest said the pole will be directly in the view from her front door, but she said she will not oppose the request if the pole conforms to the photographs which have been submitted by the applicant. She hoped there will be no future changes in the pole, i.e. that it will not get higher and will not "sprout extra antennas at the same height." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The issue of fencing was discussed. Mr. Fritz said Section 5.1.12 of the Ordinance says that fencing and other safety measures "may" be required as deemed necessary to reasonably protect the public welfare. He said the Commission may choose to have no fencing and no permanently installed climbing rungs on the pole. The applicant indicated they would be comfortable with no fencing. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that millions of utility poles do not have fencing around them. He said if 2-3-98 5 the cell site structure is painted green it will probably not be visible to passersby. Staff confirmed that the ARB will review this application. Mr. Rieley said he believes the general strategy of moving to mini -cells and away from large towers is a good one. He said he spoke with many of the residents of this neighborhood and they share Ms. Priest's attitude. He said he was impressed with how little vertical poles can be seen along this section of Rt. 250. He said that though most of the comments about visual impact have been in relation to the Bellair community, he feels the "by-pass scene" should also be considered because it is a very beautiful highway, on both the Bellair and University sides. He said because this pole will be so close to the 250/29S by-pass, there are very few trees which impact it in that direction, but he called attention to one tree in particular, which he described as "about 25 feet away --a white oak." He said this is a beautiful tree and if anything were to happen to it it would be a very different scene. To address this concern, he suggested a change in condition No. 1 which would say "the wooden part of the pole can be no higher than the white oak tree. [NOTE: Because of concerns about tying a condition to one particular tree, it was later decided that condition No. 1 would be amended to read: "The height of the tower shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower.... J Mr. Rieley also recommended that no fencing be required, and two other conditions related to landscaping be added (shown in the action as conditions 14 and 15). MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-67 CV 142 for CFW (Bellair) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the tower shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted. b. The tower shall have no lighting. c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-142"" and initialed "SET 1/15/98." 4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to two (2) fiberglass whip type antenna not to exceed seven (7) feet in length or seven (7) inches in diameter. The antenna type shall be as shown on a plan titled "611 Mini Cell Site View" which is initialed "SET 1115/98." b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. 99 M 2-3-98 6 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions. 1. Prior to approval of a building permit, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site. 2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, 'I._1-1_ 1_.-_- that '1 L-- J- 1 1_'tL 1 1_ I veri sable evidence that it has niaude a good halm effoiL o allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. 6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through tide lowest part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower, the permittee shall obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site. T he County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove additional existing trees. 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. The site shall not be fenced. 10. The access road extension shall be of minimum construction and dimension to accommodate service vehicles. Should installation of the tower require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or reduced after installation is completed. 11. The regular service interval shall be as indicated by the applicant and described herein, except as necessary for repair and restoration of service. 12. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued. /O O 2-3-98 7 13. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by no later than July 1 of that year, identifying the users and purposes for which the tower is be used. 14. At least 12 (twelve) bayberries or native hollies, or other appropriate native evergreens, shall be planted around the base of the facility. 15. Any equipment on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a modification of Section 4.10.3, to allow a reduction in setback, be granted for SP 97-67. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that a waiver of the drawing of a site plan be granted in accord with Section 32.2 for SP 97-67, subject to the following conditions: 1. Should the area of disturbance exceed 10,000 square feet (including the access road), an erosion and sediment control plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. ,,. 2. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to final zoning approval. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 97-12 Fried - GRAYROCK - Request to rezone approximately 53.02 acres from PRD, Planned Residential Development, to R-4, Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 65 and 65A (portion), is located on the north side of Route 691 (Jarman's Gap Road) approximately 1.3 miles west of Crozet in the Whitehall Magisterial District. The property is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is from Route 691). Mr. Keeler presented a detailed staff report. The report included the following: --A summary of the applicant's proffers; --A comparison of this proposal to one made in 1985 on this property and changes which have taken place in utility availability, roads, etc. --A description of the character of the area; --The planning and zoning history of the property; --Comprehensive Plan issues; --How this proposal relates to the recommendations of the Crozet Community Study; and --Potential fiscal impacts. /© / 2-3-98 8 Staff recommended approval of the request. The report concluded: Staff is reluctant to support a request which can be viewed as contrary to the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. minimum density of 6 dwellings per acre). However, implementation measures of higher densities remain under study. Based on density and character of surrounding development as well as demonstrated market demand, the proposed density of 2.5 dwellings per acre is recommended for approval. Issues identified by the Commission and staff responses to Commission questions, prior to the opening of the public hearing, included the following: An response to Mr. Rieley's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed the applicant has made no proffer to improve the existing ponds with safety measures such as safety shelves. --One of the locations for pedestrian access to the ponds appears to be in slopes of 25%. --Referring to the proffer related to the 50-buffer, Mr. Loewenstein asked what are the differences, from a protection standpoint, between a "conservation easement," as referred to in the applicant's proffer, and a "preservation area." It was Mr. Loewenstein's understanding that a conservation easement would have to be held by some other organization (e.g. the Virginia Outdoors Foundation) and he said he does not believe a preservation area involves the same level of protection as a conservation easement. Mr. Kamptner said he does not like the term conservation easement because it blurs the line between what is proposed here and the conservation easement under the Statute. Mr. Kamptner said the proffer says the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement "are going to preserve and maintain the natural vegetation that is in that 50-foot buffer strip and replace any dying trees." He said if they make this a proffer it will be come part of the zoning and it really does not matter what it is called, but the County cannot enforce a private deed restriction. --The northern portion of this property (not a part of this rezoning) was previously approved as a Planned Development for 70 units and the plan itself is binding and will require construction in general accord with that plan. There was a requirement for 3,500 square feet of developed recreation. Mr. Keeler confirmed there will actually be additional open space if the open space which was approved as a part of the northern portion is taken into consideration. Mr. Keeler said: "So the open space on the south and the open space on the north would be available to all homeowners. 1 don't see how you could separate them. " Other requirements included water quality BMP's and internal access for emergency vehicles from Grayrock PRD to Jarman Gap II PRD (the area south of the lake). --Staff confirmed a new proffer from the applicant would open this as a greenway to the public if a greenway corridor is established to Crozet. --Mr. Finley asked about Proffer IV. Mr. Keeler explained the applicant will establish design guidelines, fixed standards and guidelines for development and the homeowners' association will be responsible for maintenance. --Mr. Tice asked if staff could explain the basis for the Board's decision to reject the Crozet Community Study's recommendation of 1-4 dwelling units/acre in favor of a recommendation for a minimum of 6 dwelling units/acre for this property. Mr. Keeler 2-3-98 recalled that when the Board adopted the 1996 Land Use Plan the category of Medium density was essentially done away with. The 96 Plan has two densities -- Neighborhood Residential and Urban. Medium and High density were combined into Urban density. Mr. Cilimberg could not recall the details of the Board's discussions, but said the densities which were approved by the Board had actually been recommended by the Planning Commission. He could not recall the level of public comment about the change in density categories, though there was public comment about possible additions to the Crozet arowth area. He noted that this proposal does fall within the density that was proposed by the Crozet Study. --jack Kelsey; Chief of Enaineerina; addressed the questions about the ponds and stormwater management. He confirmed that it is a Department policy to require safety ledges (shallow areas around the perimeter of the pond) for ponds being constructed today as stormwater detention facilities: He stressed this is only for ponds serving as stormwater management structures. For ponds being built for aesthetic or recreational purposes only, his Department may recommend the construction of safety ledges, but cannot require them. County Ordinances do not regulate recreational ponds. For an existing pond, with no significant modifications proposed, it is felt that it is more environmentally detrimental to require that safety ledges be constructed than to just let the ponds remain in their existing state. He stressed that the Engineering Department only gets involved if the pond is a stormwater management facility. He said several subdivisions have been built around existing lakes/ponds, and he is not aware of any accidents which have occurred with these ponds. Mr. Kelsey said part of this site will drain into the existing ponds, but the site lies within the Lickinghole Basin and the developer will be required to contribute to that basin. (A pro- rata share based on the runoff generated by the development. The contribution is to reimburse the County for construction costs. It cannot be used for maintenance or monitoring. The payment must be made at the site plan or subdivision stage of the development, once the calculations have been made.) The developer will not be required to provide on -site detention ("other than whatever would be necessary to ensure adequate channels under the Erosion Control Handbook") because of the fact that the site drains to the Lickinghole Basin. Mr. Tice said: "What it seems like we are saying by doing that is --in this case we have a regional facility which, if my estimate is right, is located 3 miles downstream --and this property is at one end of the Crozet growth area and the regional facility is at the other end --so, essentially, we are saying we are willing to sacrifice 3 miles of stream right through the heart of the growth area. Mr. Kelsey responded: "At the time the Runoff Control Ordinance went into effect, as far as theories and philosophies of stormwater management, that was the application --rather than on -site facilities, you put in one large regional facility to cover a large area, which worked very well with the Crozet area because there were a lot of non -point discharges that were the big concern and a regional approach helps that. Since then stormwater philosophy has changed to where you are looking at putting in a regional facility, but then also going into the upper reaches of the watersheds and also looking at putting in some sub -regional and on -site facilities...." Mr. Tice said: "That makes more sense. I just addressed one part of it in terms of what the impact is on the streams in between this site and the regional facility, but the other aspect of it that is surprising to me is that we have made this investment in this regional facility and if we don't take these measures within the basin, on -site, we are 102 2-3-98 10 going to shorten the life of the public investment in this regional facility." Mr. Kelsey responded: "Right. But at the same time we feel bound by the decisions that were made when the regional facility went in and the regulations that were put into place. If we built another regional facility, we might look at things differently." Mr. Tice said: "That particular aspect of it comes from the Runoff Control Ordinance. The other thing we have to look at is the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the Site Development Plan section in the Subdivision Ordinance which specifically has requirements that applicants have to provide for the minimization of pollution of downstream water courses. That being the case, and the fact that you have this 3-mile strip between this property and the regional facility that goes though a lot of other properties --there are at risk a lot of property owners that could be damaged if proper stormwater management or runoff control measures are not placed on a property like this. I really think as a matter of County policy, we need to look at that whole issue very hard." [NOTE: Slightly later in the discussion Mr. Hirschman related some of the history on the Lickinghole Basin and also commented on Mr. Tice's concerns about the impact to properties which lie in the 3-mile stretch between this property and the Lickinghole Basin. Mr. Keeler said staff will review some of the discussions which took place "to see if anything needs to be changed in terms of policy at the Board level."] Mr. Tice concluded: "What concerns me is oftentimes on site development plans and subdivision plats, our hands are tied in terms of how far we can go. Rezoning requests are one of the places where this issue can be addressed." Mr. Kelsey noted that the existing ponds will serve a water quality benefit. Mr. Tice said that is true only for that portion of the site which drains to the ponds --about 1/3 of the property. --David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, commented on the opportunity for the applicant to install adequate on -site BMP's and stormwater management measures. He said there will be little opportunity for other runoff control basins on the "front part of the property." Other BMP's will have to be considered, such as grass swales or small drainage area BMP's. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Hirschman to comment on the applicant's proffer for BMP's. Mr. Hirschman said he would "generally support" the proffer. He said he would see grassline swales as just one possibility and it is difficult, until final site engineering, to determine what will work. He suggested that the proffer be as general as possible at this point. He suggested the applicant might wish to work with the Engineering Department on the development of a BMP Plan. Mr. Rooker asked if there is any County "oversight" that would come from this type of proffer. Mr. Kamptner responded: "We would want to clarify it so there would be no dispute. I think we would want to have whatever Best Management Practices are proposed to be reviewed by the Engineering Department." (Staff confirmed that the proffers must be finalized and signed before the Board public hearing.) --Mr. Finley asked if post -development runoff can be more than pre - development runoff in a specific development which lies in the Lickinghole Basin. Mr. Hirschman replied: "That would be the case, obviously, if they develop a site. The post -development runoff would have a higher pollutant load. It is a complicated question because there are plenty of developments that are subject to the Runoff Control Ordinance that don't do any on -site stormwater management if they fall under 5% impervious cover. In those cases, they fall between the cracks. If they are over 5% impervious and they do require runoff control, then that is a standard --it is either that the post -development runoff will not exceed pre -development runoff or it meets /v � 2-3-98 11 certain numerical standards. That is what is in the current ordinance. The philosophy with Lickinghole is that that load would be treated in the Lickinghole basin, rather than by the on -site facilities. The point of control would be immediately downstream from the Lickinghole dam. With the regional program, that is our point of analysis." Applicant comment was invited. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blaine. Mr. Blaine used slides in his presentation which described the "principles" of the application. A few of the slides were maps showing the location of the property and the zoning on the surrounding property. He said this proposal meets the development principles of the County in that it accommodates new growth, directs it in the development areas, achieves higher density than the existing zoning allows, and is a more effective use of the underused area within the development areas." He pointed out this proposal recommends a density that is in line with that proposed by the Crozet Community study. He summarized the applicant's proffers. In relation to the 50-foot buffer, he offered to delete the words "conservation easement " from proffer No. 4 so as to prevent confusion because there was no intent that the buffer be dedicated to a public body. The buffer will be controlled and maintained by the homeowners' association just as open space. The lakes on the property are intended for "passive recreation" only. It is intended that they will be kept in as natural a state as possible. No swimming or boating is intended. As much of the existing vegetation along Jarman Gap Road (travelling west) will be preserved as possible. The applicant held four neighborhood meetings and as a result of opposition to an urban density, a maximum density of 131 single-family detached dwellings are proposed. He said the existing "excellent" level of service on the roads will not be impacted by the proposed development. Improvements recommended by VDOT have been proffered. He concluded: "We think it is appropriate to act on this and approve the zoning now. The public facilities are there. It is in response to growth pressure we are experiencing. It is the appropriate place because it follows the Comp Plan to direct development into the growth areas and promote in -fill development. It is consistent with the Crozet Community Study. In terms of density it is what the community wants, and it is in harmony with the surrounding land uses." Answers to specific Commission questions were as follows: --Mr. Tom Muncaster, Engineer for the project, addressed Mr. Rieley's earlier question about the slope of the pedestrian access leading to the lake. He said the area where the access is proposed is not in 25% slopes. He estimated the slopes to be 10-15%. Mr. Rieley was concerned about the fact that this is the only open space in the whole plan and the access is down a steep slope. Mr. Muncaster said there are 5.27 acres of open space, not including the ponds or the area to the north which is not a part of the rezoning request. --Noting that the applicant has proffered the number of lots, but has not proffered lot size, Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Muncaster: "is there anything in the proffer that keeps you from simply condensing the scheme even further?" Mr. Muncaster replied: "The minimum lot size for R-4 is 10,000 square feet (corrected later as 10,890 square feet) and these are 80-foot frontage lots and to have the required area for each lot, it would have to have a depth of 137 feet to meet that minimum area l®6— 2-3-98 12 requirement, which all those lots do." Mr. Blaine added: "And, obviously, the 131 is a cap. The yield is going to depend on what the ordinance requires and we are aware of the ordinance requirements." --The applicant's traffic consultant, Mr. Ramey Kemp, answered Mr. Tice's questions about current traffic loading on Jarman's Gap Road and how this development will impact that traffic. He said: We anticipated even loading between the start of construction and the year 2002 (buildout). By 2002 the background traffic was projected at a rate of 2%-3% per year, and then the site traffic was added in --the peak hour traffic. The delay at those intersections now, at 240/691 and 691 /684 is less than 5 seconds. Average delay at peak hour is 1-2 seconds for the intersection. We increase that delay, but it is still less than 5 seconds, which is service level A. It is in level service A now and it will be in level service A when the full buildout occurs. Mr. Blaine interjected that level service A is the highest possible. Mr. Tice noted that the road is presently considered by VDOT to be "nontolerable." Mr. Kemp explained that the word "nontolerable" is strictly a VDOT term used as an indicator for where they fund secondary road improvements. It is a method of determining a priority. It is related to the width of the roadway and the traffic on the roadway. It has nothing to do with whether or not the road is operating safely, or the level of service. The feature which causes this road to be labeled nontolerable is the width of pavement. Mr. Tice asked: "Can I make the assumption that for that width of pavement, VDOT has a standard capacity in terms of vehicles per day?" Mr. Kemp replied: "Yes. But the capacity is so far above what is operating on that roadway, that it is not significant... and it is not a factor in their determining the road to be nontolerable." Mr. Tice said: "So the vehicle loading right now exceeds VDOT's tolerable standards for that road." Mr. Kemp responded: "When they compare all the roads under their jurisdiction locally, and compare the widths and the traffic loading, this road has one of the highest priorities for improvements. That's all it means." Mr Tice asked: How will that change after the road is widened?" Mr. Kemp responded: "What they normally do --they don't widen to the width normally shown on their chart. They usually go 2 feet wider, which is what they are going to propose this time. I think at a minimum they are going to widen it to 22 feet and for the volume of traffic that will be on that roadway at that point, it will be well down on their list." Mr. Tice asked: Even after adding all the traffic from this development it will be below the tolerable standard?" Mr. Kemp replied: "Yes." Mr. Kemp said Grayrock will add about 1,400 vehicles/day. It is anticipated 80% of those will travel in the direction of Crozet, and 20% in the direction of Rt. 684. This will put the total count up to 3,200 vehicles/day and the tolerable standards are 4,000-6,000 vehicles/day for a pavement width of 22 feet. The applicant estimated approximately 30-40 units will be built each year. Mr. Blaine said the homes will start at $150,000 and local builders are envisioned. At the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, Mr. Blaine presented a petition of support for the request which he said had been signed by 109 Crozet residents. Public comment was invited. Im /v r 2-3-98 13 Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident and one of the authors of the Crozet Community *OMW Study, addressed the Commission. (His statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.) He first addressed a question raised earlier in the meeting about the Board's consultation with the Crozet Committee when the densities were upgraded. He said there had been no consultation. He stressed that the Crozet residents want to be a part of the planning process to help in the design of their community. He asked that action on this request be delayed to allow the residents of Crozet a chance to work with the consultants hired by the County (CHK) and to allow time for the County the opportunity to receive input from the consultants. His statement concluded: To approve this rezoning without having the consultant's input would be contrary to the public interest." (Mr. Loach asked those present who agreed with his statements to stand. Approximately 10 persons responded.) Mr. Chet Lyons addressed the Commission. He supported Mr. Loach's comments. He hoped the review process would look very closely at the way this development is being designed. He pointed out there is no buffer proposed along Jarman's Gap Road. He expressed concerns about how the fact that there will be no requirement to treat the runoff from this development "at the source," and this will negatively impact 3 miles of pristine stream. He asked that the developer be required to consider making this a "solar community." He described some of the benefits of solar energy. The following Crozet residents expressed concerns about the proposal: Mr. John Dent; Mr. Larry Davis; Ms. Lanie Albright; Mr. Peter Hatch; and Mr. Grant. Their concerns were as follows- --Rt. 684 is a very dangerous road. Many accidents have already occurred on this road. --Potential impact to water pressure, which is already inadequate. --The number of units for this property should be low density, which blends well with adjoining neighborhoods. --Potential runoff onto adjoining properties. --Inadequacy of services in Crozet to accommodate the extra population and traffic. --Action should be deferred until after the consultant has completed an analysis. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked if the applicant could comment further on their prediction that 20% of traffic would use Rt. 684 and 80% would go towards Crozet. Mr.Kemp responded: "It was based on a combination of counts and looking at employment locations, and how people would get there and it was reviewed with the Planning staff and with VDOT. It was just the best attempt that we could make. If you look at where the traffic is going and coming from, most of the traffic on Jarman's Gap Road goes back towards Rt. 240. That, coupled with a look at where the employment is, is how we came up with the 80%. It makes it look better, from a delay standpoint, to assign it 50-50, but it's not going to go that way. So we try to be as realistic as we can in our assessment of k where we think it is going to go." Mr. Tice asked if Rt. 684 is scheduled for l0,7 2-3-98 14 improvement in the near future. Mr. Keeler replied: "No. I believe 684 was one of lv� the reasons for not expanding the growth area to the west. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes 684 was listed as a long-range project at one time, but it is not presently in the Six -Year Plan priority list." Addressing statements made by Mr. Loach about the County's arrangement with CHK (a private consulting firm), Mr. Tice, who served as Chair of the Development Areas Initiative Committee, said the County's contract with CHK does not provide for them to do the type of review and input that was suggested. Both the Committee and CHK favored the idea of the selection of this site as a demonstration design site to do a design session similar to what was done at Towers, and that possibility was presented to the applicant, but the applicant not to participate. He said, based on his understanding of the contract with CHK: "We don't have an option to ask CHK's input on this process. It would require a modification to the contract. The Board of Supervisors, if presented with that option, may want to do an entirely separate contract and put it out for proposals, and then the question comes up as to how it is going to be paid for because this is not part of the scope of work of CHK." Mr. Tice said he very strongly supported the idea of this site being one of the sites for the design workshops because it likely would have led to a better design, but that is not an option because the applicant decided "not to go that route." (Mr. Loach was allowed to "clarify" his meaning. He said: "I wasn't talking about having them do a site specific analysis. I was talking about CHK doing exactly the same thing they did for the Towers Land Trust. I would submit that what I would do is asked CHK to take the Crozet Community Study Plan, use the verbiage in there in the Residential section, to design a prototype for the property. That's what I would do. I am not asking for a site specific study of this plan.") Mr. Finley said the fact that the applicant chose not to participate in the study should not prejudice the Commission's decision on this request. (Mr. Tice responded: "I wasn't suggesting that it should.") Mr. Finley asked how the Comp Plan came to have a recommendation for urban density for this property given the traffic problems. Mr. Cilimberg said the Comp Plan is a 20 year plan for land use and it identifies public improvements that go with that land use plan, which would include improvements to Rt. 691 to meet density needs that would reflect the Comp Plan. Mr. Finley concluded: "So the reason the growth area did not go west is why the other route is not in the road plan." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I can't say it was THE reason, but 684 was on the western boundary of an area that was not being considered for expansion so the improvement was not included in the Plan because it was not in an area of future development." In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the intersection level of service, for both the intersections east and west of this site, is A. Mr. Rooker asked: Are there any traffic problems at any intersections that would be fed from this development. Mr. Cilimberg said the intersection with the biggest problem in Crozet is in town, at Rt. 240/810, and some of this traffic will circulate through that area. A l0� cm 2-3-98 15 member of the public offered the information that the intersection described by Mr. Cilimberg is 1.2 miles from the proposed development. Mr. Rooker asked staff to comment on the concerns expressed about water pressure. Mr. Keeler said he had spoken with the Albemarle County Service Authority and they have received no complaints about water pressure. ACSA conducted pressure tests and though "it is not the best pressure in the world, it is the range acceptable to the Health Department." Internal pressure in a dwelling should be 30 psi. The pressure here ranges from 32-44. He stressed that increasing the size of the line would not improve the pressure. The pressure is a function of the relationship of the elevation of Jarman's Gap Estates to the water tank. The closer you get in elevation to the water tank, the less pressure there will be. Mr. Keeler confirmed there is no projected effect on water pressure in the Jarman's Gap area as a result of the increased usage of this development. Mr. Finley said he believes staff did a thorough analysis of this request and they concluded this petition complies with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and the guidelines of the Crozet Community. He said: "So if it complies with all these, there is legitimate reason to approve it." Mr. Tice compared the proposal to various recommendations in the Crozet Community Study which had been addressed the staffs report: --Vacant land is to be developed in a manner consistent with the overlaying Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation: "While the overlying Comp Plan land use designation is a much higher density, what the Committee that developed this Crozet Study had in mind was their concurrent recommendation that the density for this particular area be reduced to a neighborhood of 1-4 du/acre, so this would seem to be consistent with that." --Development should only occur where adequate infrastructure is planned for and can be provided: "I think that has been met." --Those areas of a zoning designation inconsistent with the overlying Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation should be encouraged to rezone and develop the property in a manner consistent with the land use designation: "With what I think the Committee had in mind, this seems to be consistent. Specifically they recommended for Jarman's Gap Road to replace the density that was originally there with low density residential. So it seems to be consistent with that." --Employ innovative housing design and site planning techniques in housing development that minimizes the amount of impervious surfaces: "This is one where I think the submitted plan probably falls short. This may be an area where, had it gone through the kind of design process that Towers went through, it might have resulted in a better design." --Provide open space and protect natural features: "That, to the extent offered, has been done." --Provide neighborhood activity centers within convenient walking distance to new housing: "I'm not sure exactly what they meant by neighborhood activity center, but to the extent that there is passive recreation, that has been provided." 16 1 2-3-98 16 Mr. Tice also commented on the following recommendations in the Crozet Community r.•r Study which were not addressed in the staff report: --Layouts with a mix of housing types and price ranges should be considered. This type of layout permits the creation of more diverse and architecturally interesting neighborhoods: "Apparently this has not been provided for, but, having been on this Commission for a number of years, I can say this is one of the areas that often brings anxiety from neighbors when this is discussed. But I think this is an important issue." --Neighborhoods developed in small sections allow for design flexibility that can enhance and facilitate a more comfortable and human scale neighborhood. Neighborhoods developed in smaller sections can be more easily phased and constructed and are cost effective. Smaller sections create more opportunities to build homes with frontage toward views and/or amenities. (No comment) --Open space should be utilized when considering a circulation system for water, pedestrians, bicycles and wildlife: I think the applicant strengthened their position considerably by providing for the possibility for a greenway, if it worked out with the area." --Mr. Tice said there are other parts of the Study related to trees and landscaping which this plan seems to be consistent with, though "we could argue that 100 feet is inadequate spacing." Mr. Keeler confirmed that the proffers provide for long term maintenance of the trees, with replacement proffered for trees along Jarman's Gap Road. Mr. Kamptner said the street trees will also be maintained by the applicant or the association. (Mr. Blaine confirmed that it is the applicant's intent to replace trees if they die.) Mr. Tice asked Mr. Rieley to comment on the landscaping plan. Mr. Rieley responded: "I don't think trees planted 100-feet apart could be called street trees. Normally, street trees are 25 or 30 feet apart." --On the Roadway Section of the Study encouraging narrower streets: "To some extent I guess we are bound by VDOT requirements in terms of how far the applicant can go on this." --Develop a well -designed pedestrian network: "The revised proffers seem to strengthen that a little." --The Crozet Study recommends sidewalks along Jarman's Gap Road: "The applicant has added a proffer that deals with that." Mr. Tice concluded: "I guess the bottom line is there are a large number of items in the Crozet Community study with which this plan is consistent. The ones I have particular reservations about are the ones that deal with the overall innovative site planning techniques to minimize impervious surfaces, the mix of housing types and the scale of the project. Those are the kinds of things that I would agree with the comments that were made that had this been through a design session, they probably would have been addressed better than they have been. I am troubled about the prospect of acting as if we are trying to compel an applicant to go through a process, even though the end result would be the type of plan that I would like and that I advocate. It bothers me to look like we are making that kind of requirement of an applicant. To some extent I think we have to act on what we get and look at the way, what may be the shortfalls, such as those that I have identified, balance with the benefits that are offered by the applicant, (benefits) that we might not otherwise get even if we went through that kind of design process. One issue that I think is very 2-3-98 17 important here, and particularly important to me, is the stormwater issue. I have some significant reservations about the county policy not requiring on -site measures within these regional basins. The applicant has at least suggested a proffer to address that issue that in my mind might help set a good precedent in dealing with other properties in similar situations. I don't know if the language is adequate, but, at least in concept, I like that idea. I like the idea of a greenway and the public benefit that would be provided by allowing the entire community access to the ponds and the open space in this area. I don't know what the reality of a greenway being completed through that area is. " Though Mr. Rieley complimented the applicant's team on a "well crafted and honest presentation of the project" and a skillful application of a subdivision model that has been around for a long time, he said he believes "this is the wrong model, the wrong pattern and the wrong time for this kind of plan." He explained: "I think the whole question of 1-4 acres, 6-20, maybe 34, is terribly confusing. We have a range of 1 du/acre to 34 du/acre, which scares the hell out of people. Nobody knows what to expect and what the implications for infrastructure and everything else are. I think we should be fairly clear about what we think the target is and I don't think this is an unreasonable target that the applicant has brought to us if it is done well." He said Reading though the various standards in the staff report --General Principles for Land Use in Designated Development Areas, the General Land Use Standard for Designated Development Areas, Specific Standards, etc. --is a lot like reading a bible. "You can find something in there to support almost anything. The one I think is most important is under the General Principles for Land Use in Designated Development Areas which says plans for the development areas should 'emphasize the County's desire for design standards that are more characteristic of small, well planned city neighborhoods or towns than of typical low density suburban areas.' That, I think, is at the heart of my concern about this plan. What, in specific terms, does that mean? Let me give you a few examples: Streets - well -planned city neighborhoods and towns are organized on streets, not roads. They form a network of alternative routes which make for easy connections, both within the neighborhood and with adjacent neighborhoods, existing and future. When one looks at this and you imagine living in one of these houses and getting from one side to the other, the only way to get there, walking, is in the road. There are no sidewalks provided at all. Look at the route you might have to take in order to do that without trespassing. I don't see how this meets the Crozet Neighborhood request for a plan that has an effective pedestrian network. I just don't think it exists. There are lots of variations that meet the criteria for a good street system. A simple grid offers a much better opportunity, I think, for interior and exterior connections. A good place to look is Crozet --St. George Avenue is a much better model than what we have here, which could be anywhere in the country. I think what we have here is indicative of the kind of layout --if you just pump this up a little in scale --this is an average suburban layout that has been done a hundred million times. Billions of dollars have been made doing it. It is a low -density suburban pattern, trunked down to a smaller scale, with all the advantages to the developer of higher density, and none of the advantages --and there are advantages to the community for higher density --they just don't accrue in this plan. 2-3-98 18 --Walkability: A system of sidewalks is an essential component of any residential development, I think, in any of these developed areas. --Mix of Housing Types: One of our targets is to try to get away from a pattern of suburban sprawl. That is what this is. All you have to do is multiply this a few times and it is the definition of it. This is suburban sprawl. --Public landscape: Principles for Land Use in Designated Growth Areas says 'Open space should be employed as a design feature to establish and define smaller neighborhood areas within the larger development.' This doesn't do it. As the density increases, the need for quality public, and semi-public, site development increases. Street trees (should be) 25 feet apart, not 100 feet apart. Greens, divided streets, open squares and other shared places become much more important. This kind of open space is completely absent in this conceptual plan. I agree completely with Mr. Tice that I don't think that a design that is based on these time-honored principles has to come out of a current contract with the County. I think they are pretty clear in the existing criteria. Another one out of the same standard says 'Maintain the requirement for recreational facilities for developments where the density and lawn sizes do not allow for meaningful recreation space.' 10,000 square foot lots do not allow for meaningful recreation space. It is not enough room to kick a football, hit a baseball or throw a frisbee, and the only space that is left over is in the road. Going out in the road may be appropriate at the previous density--37 lots --but its not appropriate for 131 lots, I don't think. Where is a good place for mothers and children to meet by the swing sets or for children to ride bikes? It doesn't exist." Mr. Rieley concluded: "Finally, I think one of the components we should look for with every design is that of being a good neighbor. I think the Crozet community is being asked to play an important role in the County's overall plan by absorbing a potentially much larger amount of growth than most other areas. For this, they should get development that gets a positive contribution to their community. This plan, as several speakers have pointed out, turns its back on the community on all sides. Backs of houses face the pond and the future townhouse area, as well as the adjoining property on both sides. And, most significantly, 19 proposed houses have their back yards directly on Jarman's Gap Road, with the only mitigating factor being a pledge not to cut down a couple of rows of pretty dilapidated apple trees. This is not a polite way to build, and civility is an indispensable component in design of the town density level. So I think we have to insist on a design that acknowledges that greater density brings with it a different set of responsibilities and that we can't just shrink down the low -density suburban scheme and squeeze it onto a smaller site. I don't think this is ultimately about fire flow or storm drainage. I think it is about a much bigger issue. It is about how we are going to build an Albemarle County and how we are going to treat both the land and the people in these development areas." Mr. Finley asked Mr. Rieley: "What mechanisms exist to cause a developer to bring forth the kind of plan you are describing? The Crozet Plan, in some measure, was after many things, one being a waiver of setbacks so as to fit in with the old town. The neighborhood concept, yes, but it was I�qped�that eventually this would be built into zoning plans, etc., so that a developer wloj4hav%a, pla�qe to go to learn what is expected of them." 2-3-98 19 Mr. Rieley responded: "That is a great point, and I think you are exactly right, but the points I am trying to make here --not a single one of them require one change in any law. You can do this with VDOT road standards; you can do it with current County setback requirements; you can do it with the current zoning that the applicant is asking for. But we need some assurance that something is going to be put back in other than just money for additional lots. When you get that kind of additional density, there is plenty to put back into things like sidewalks, street trees, and greens and a reasonable organization and that is just not here. What I am concerned about is that the developer gets all the benefit of higher density with no benefit to the community. I am concerned about benefit to the community. Don't misunderstand. I want developers to make money in the development areas. I think it is critical that they do. If they don't, we're going to fail. But if all the County gets out of this is a place for 94 additional families to live that might not be in rural areas, and we get a sub -standard subdivision that will be profitable for a few people and a blight for the people in the neighborhood, we have made a very bad decision and set a terrible precedent within the development areas." Mr. Loewenstein said he agrees with much of Mr. Rieley's comments. He said: "I am distressed by a number of the aspects of the design that we have here tonight. There isn't a good mix of uses. There is not adequate buffering along Jarman's Gap Road. I have questions about stormwater management and its impact on water quality. I have questions about inadequate provisions of access to the open space and the safety of the ponds. But these are details. My larger concerns have been reflected by some of Mr. Rieley's comments. In many respects we are at a crossroads with applications like this. We can choose to take this opportunity to try to inject some additional thinking into this process that will get us a community that will better reflect the good aspects of what everybody wants to see for Albemarle County. I am very much concerned about benefit for a few rather than for the many. I include those who will be living nearby this area as well as those who will be living in it. So I have a lot of the same concerns. I think these are questions that need to be asked at this point." Mr. Finley asked: "At what point will there be guidelines so that these developers will begin to come forth with many of the things you are talking about? I am sure everyone would love to see what you are talking about." Mr. Loewenstein responded: "I think we are entering a period of a climate of positive expectations regarding land use planning and new approaches to it locally. I've attended one workshop that was very useful, which CHK participated in which was referred to tonight. I think all this is a good a thing. Another way of phrasing what Mr. Finley is asking might be 'what, in reality, can the County do at the moment, given existing regulations?' I think we do have some leeway and I think Mr. Rieley pointed this out in some of the text he singled out for comment. I don't think it is an easy task, but I think we can begin to make (progress) with this. I think we can send a variety of messages to both developers in the community and the community at large. I agree that with county encouragement and support the Crozet Committee produced a very admirable report. I think we need to be sure we are taking all aspects of that into consideration before we make decisions about projects like this one." r�� 2-3-98 20 Mr. Rooker commented: "I agree. I think there are a number of specific goals in the `'14w, Comprehensive Plan and specific goals in the Land Use Plan that can be met with a project of this density, with proper designing. I don't object to the density, which I think is well within the parameters, but I think there are a lot of goals specifically stated in the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan that aren't addressed here and those goals are as important as the density." Referring to Attachment E to the staff report, Mr. Finley pointed out that staff had reviewed this "line -by-line" and compared it to what we have. He asked: "What else did they have to look at? How long before we build in some things that begin to reflect what Mr. Rieley's thinking, or whatever there is a consensus on? But, right now, the staff looked line -by-line at what we have and concluded that this complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances and even the Crozet Study." Mr. Rieley said he does not argue with staffs analysis, but he feels it is the Commission's job "to set the standard and what we do tonight gives a clear signal to staff. All of these things are not equal. There are pages after pages and they are not all equal. Our action tonight will send a clear signal about what we think is important." Mr. Loewenstein said he feels there are "already guidelines in place to reach that point." Mr. Nitchmann said the county is in a very evolutionary mode. Local developers have been putting these developments together for many years and, "we, as Planning %Mo Commissioners and staff, have been working with what has happened in the past and trying to correct the present, and not looking far enough in the future for what we need to be doing to improve future communities. I agree with everything that has been said. I have problems with this too. It is a cookie -cutter thing. It is 20 million dollars in sales that is going to come to someone. But the County needs developers to provide these developments because we need these homes. We can't stop the growth. The process we are in now is trying to bring all these pieces together and put them in one document so you can give it to the entrepreneurs in this world to show how we envision our community. Your comment about sending a signal to staff --I don't know what that signal means to the staff . Are we saying we want trees to be 25 feet apart, we want all roads to have sidewalks, we want water that will give you 10 gallons/minute, we want this, this, and this' --or are we just going to leave it up to staff to create a list and then we will spend time reviewing the list, hopefully with input from the entire county community? I have a hard time with this because we are considering a development we need to help satisfy future housing demands. On the other side I see a housing community that is not going to address the needs of a lot of individuals. In order to qualify for a loan on a $150,000 home, a family needs $60,000 of income, but the average individual income is $23,000 ($46,000 for a two -earner household). This proposal has no benefit for the average working person. This development is aimed more at higher income levels and possibly retirees." Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the lack of recreational area for children and the lack of good walking areas. He said this design is not "conducive to bringing neighborhoods together so that you know who is living next door." He asked, 11%W however, if this developer should be held hostage while the County tries to develop a 2-3-98 21 new set of rules and regulations. He concluded: "if the staff says this complies with the Comprehensive Plan, how do we turn it down? I would like to see it go back to the drawing board. I would like to see some of these things that Mr. Rieley has mentioned and I would like to see a higher density. We're talking about not trying to expand into the (rural area), yet we're still looking at single family homes. Why can't we mix into areas like this some townhouses which families with moderate incomes can afford?" Mr. Nitchmann concluded his comments by saying he still was undecided as to how he would vote. Mr. Tice asked if the applicant could be asked if they were willing to consider some of the ideas which have been discussed. Mr. Blaine responded: "I think what I was hearing is not a rejection of the rezoning based upon the infrastructure, whether the facilities are available, but how people are going to live. What the planners want to do is dictate how people want to live. There were a lot of elements developed in the charrette that are incorporated in this plan. We are talking about a 54 acre tract and it is very limited with the existing subdivision rules and regulations in what you can do. The R-4 density was sought, in part, because of sensitivity to sustainable elements that were talked about tonight. For example, the road section does not require curb and gutter. It allows a smaller roadway. We are hearing contradictory signals. We are hearing elements which we are trying to incorporate into the plan are bad because neighbors object to them. And other elements that are required by the Ordinance, we don't have any choice about. We have a Comprehensive Plan that is reviewed every five years. It's the signal to the development community of what they are supposed to do. We have a Subdivision Ordinance that has been developed over 30 or 40 years, and it tells the developer what is available in terms of options. It is not in the urban areas, which is what Design Initiative Studies Committee and those design charrettes are concentrating on. It is not appropriate (to mix retail uses with residential uses). We have mixed housing types on the northern tract --townhouses and single family detached. We are hearing a lot of mixed signals. We've done what we can to abide by the Plan. We have followed the recommendations of staff. We have followed the recommendations of VDOT. What's a developer to do?" Mr. Nitchmann responded: "That's why I made my comment. It's kind of like holding you hostage and not having any of the answers for you at the same time and it is because we are in this mode of change right now. It's hard for me to say you can't go forward on this because you have been following the rules, and we're trying to change the rules." Mr. Rieley responded to some of Mr. Nitchmann's earlier comments: "I don't think the message we will send to staff or the developers is unclear at all. I think that we will say, when we read this myriad of things we have on the books, that what is important is this --it is already on the books, we don't have to add a thing: Emphasize the county's desire for design strategies that are more characteristic of small, well planned city neighborhoods or towns than or typical low density suburban areas. That is not dictating details. I have absolutely no desire to tell people what kind of curb sections to have. But this a principle that is sound and it gives a better community and will make Crozet better and it makes a lot of sense to go in that direction. And I think it'll 11, M 2-3-98 give a very clear, unequivocable signal to staff and to people in the development community." 22 Mr. Finley asked if the applicant, having heard all the discussion, has an option "to take it or leave it." Mr. Rieley said: "We have to deal with what we have before us. What we have before us is do we leave the zoning the way it is--37 units --or do we accept the rezoning with the proffers this developer has brought to us? For me, the answer is very clear, that the existing zoning, the 37 lots, even though it is 94 units that we could be providing housing for, is better than adopting a plan that is going to be a problem for the community." Mr. Finley responded: "But we have growth areas. I live in the Rural Areas where we have no growth and we have to protect our water courses... because growth areas need water. I get no return at all on fencing my cows out of the stream. Growth areas get the sewers; they get the water; they get the roads. And the reason is to provide places, like Mr. Nitchmann said, where we can have density and keep from filling up the rural areas. If every time we get a proposal in a growth area and a developer comes in who has followed subdivision guidelines and zoning requirements, and it doesn't meet what we think it ought to be --how are we going to get together on it so the developer will know what the County really requires him to produce before it can be accepted? We don't have it yet. This is a difficult decision." Mr. Tice added: "It is particularly difficult because there are other places in the County where this infill question comes up, where if an applicant were to come forward implementing the very design elements that Mr. Rieley and Mr. Nitchmann talked about, we will have a standing -room -only crowd of neighbors saying 'I don't want mixed housing types.' We had another site which the DISC recommended for one of the design sessions north of town and the applicant was willing to cooperate with the design process, but the neighbors said 'no way.' " Mr. Nitchmann said he is still "on the fence," but the bottom line is the applicant has followed all the rules and now we're talking about changing the rules. He said the Board will get the Commission's minutes, and if they really want to change the rules, that is a decision they can make. He concluded: "I would vote positively for this with the feeling that the Board will look at all our comments and try to make a decision as to where we're going to go. We can't stop until we get all these charrrettes done. In the meantime the applicant has heard some of the things we would like to see incorporated into the plan as well as hear more from the Crozet community. I think it is unfortunate we have this discussion on a night where a decision of this magnitude has to be made. If we'd had this discussion two months ago then this applicant, who is trying to do this in a way that is good for the community and for themselves, would have probably approached this in a different manner." Mr. Tice recalled this same type of debate had taken place on a rezoning application last summer. He agreed this is a confusing time for the entire county, but there has been a lot of information about the approach the county wishes to take. /r( 2-3-98 23 Mr. Keeler made the following statement regarding proffers: "You can't accept proffers which set aside your ordinances. You can address sidewalks. You can address double -frontage lots along Rt. 691 and you can address the critical slopes on the lots in the vicinity of the pond. So you are not setting aside the ordinance. Street trees, under our current ordinance, don't come into play with this density. Active recreation requirements don't come into play with this type of unit and type of development. Those are two things which aren't covered in our regulations. The comments you have made regarding the houses along Rt. 691, pedestrian access and the critical slopes --the staff report recommends strongly that consideration be given to pedestrian access --and you can require that. If the zoning is approved and we come back with this, I think we should probably discuss what kind of pedestrian access we are talking about because VDOT won't accept curb and gutter and sidewalks so a Supervisor has to get involved in that aspect. Off -road pathways and easements, or something along those lines are discussed in the report." (Mr. Rooker said those items, if properly addressed, would greatly improve this plan.) MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA 97-12 (Grayrock) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, with the understanding the proffer which uses the term "conservation easement" will be clarified so as not to be confused with the same term in the State statutes. (Mr. Kamptner said there are some other minor word clarifications which need to be made Mr. Finley seconded the motion. The motion for approval failed to pass due to a tie vote. Commissioners Finley, Nitchmann and Tice voted for the motion; Commissioners Rieley, Rooker and Loewenstein voted against. The request was passed on to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg said tonight's discussion had included a lot of good comments about perspective as to the Plan, but he was uncertain as to whether or not "we got a definitive direction." He said: "The Board of Supervisors is the final say, and as the Board reviews what you have said, and they, hopefully, will expound on that, we might get a little more direction as to the expectations. Ultimately I do have the sincere hope that at the end of the Development Area Initiatives we are going to have some more precise statements about exactly what we want to see in these areas." Concerns were expressed about how long these studies take. Mr. Loewenstein said: "As I said, we have created a climate of expectation. We have brought a lot of people into the process on a variety of initiatives and we are still spinning our wheels. That is very difficult for the public and for the development community to absorb, and also very difficult for staff. As Mr. Rieley points out, we do have standards in place that we can choose to emphasize if we want to. I see that as a way to move a little further down the road than we are right now towards directions that we all think we are going in because of the creation of DISC and a other things. If the minutes of tonight's meeting get us any closer to that when the Board reads them, that's good." ------------------------------------- 11 7 2-3-98 24 Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (15.2-2232 Review) Stone Robinson Elementary School - Request for review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of a proposal to add one new soccer field and construct two new play areas at Stone Robinson Elementary School. The property, zoned RA, Rural Areas, and described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 22, 23A, 23D (portion of), and 23E, 110A, is located on the west side of State Route 729 (North Milton Road), approximately 300 feet south of Route 250 East (Richmond Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a development area and is located in Rural Area 4. AND SDP 97-144 Stone Robinson Elementary School Maior Site Plan Amendment/Waiver Reguest - Request for a waiver to allow grading on critical slopes [4.2] in association with classroom and library expansion of Stone Robinson elementary School, and construction of a new parking lot, play areas, and a soccer field. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the new soccer field and play areas be found to be in Compliance with the Comp Plan and also recommended that a waiver of 4.2.3.2 be granted to allow grading within critical slope areas. Mr. Rieley asked if the area where the soccer field is to be located is fill area. (Mr. Tice responded: "All except for that lower right corner.") Ms. Thomas confirmed that nothing is being disturbed below the natural grade. Mr. Tice said he had attended the Site Review meeting for this plan and this plan is considerably better than previously proposed. He said he thinks this will be a real asset to the community. He said the critical slope area to the left has some significant erosion problems and this plan will correct those problems. Having visited the site, Mr. Tice said throughout this fill area, on all sides, there is a network of stormwater and erosion control measures that have been put in. He asked how the engineers who developed this plan have looked at how it will relate to those existing structures, and who will be responsible for the maintenance of those structures? Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the County Engineering Department, addressed Mr. Tice's question. She said she is not positive that those issues have been addressed but she assured Mr. Tice that they can be addressed as the final plan is approved. Mr. Tice said there is also, at the bottom of the slope to the left, is a spring which is highly loaded with algae. He asked if anyone has looked into whether there are any potential water quality problems from the fill. Mr. Hirschman said there are some structures which look like old erosion control basins/silt traps which have never been removed. The spring had been dry when he visited the site so he had not noticed any problem. Mr. Tice said "between the soccer field and the area where the spring is located" is an area of really steep slopes. He said he is not sure those slopes are l�� 2-3-98 25 stabilized. He asked who will be responsible for looking at the site and developing whatever stabilization/erosion control/landscaping might be required. He said the site needs to be looked at comprehensively in terms of erosion control (i.e. "all the critical slopes on whatever part of the property the county ends up getting) and not just that part which is being disturbed by the construction of these fields, to make sure we don't end up with a problem with that fill area. He said he would feel comfortable finding this to be in compliance with the Comp Plan, provided County staff is going to look at the issues he identified and develop whatever plan is needed. Public comment was invited. Ms. Sandy Bingler, representing her mother, Mary Lang, whose property, parcel 21, adjoins the north side of the school property and is surrounded on all other sides by Luck Stone, addressed the Commission. She said her mother's driveway runs along the steep bank, which belongs to the school. She asked if grading will be done along the bank. Staff said there will some grading for the relocation of the water line which is caused by the classroom addition to the school. Otherwise, none of the construction effects the area of concern to Ms. Bingler. Ms. Bingler said the last time there was construction at the school the bank had been graded and a lot of mud and water had come onto Ms. Lang's property. She asked for assurance from the Commission that if grading is done on the bank, "the existing drainage ditch which runs along the drive at the bottom of the slope is kept cleared and that the driveway not be blocked at any time." (Mr. Rieley pointed out that Ms. Lang's driveway is the old Three Notched Road, which is another reason to protect it.) There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the proposal, as described in the staff report, for Stone Robinson Elementary School Additions, be found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, with the understanding that the Engineering Department will conduct a review and develop a plan for the entire portion of the property that the County will receive, that addresses erosion and stormwater concerns. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2, to allow grading in critical slopes for the Stone Robinson Elementary School additions, be approved, with the understanding that Ms. Lang's property will be adequately protected from runoff and her driveway will not be blocked at any time. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff could request that the school "police the area" more regularly to keep the property cleaner. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:4 p.m. V. Wayn Cilimberg Se tary