HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 21 1998 PC Minutes7-21-98
JULY 21, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 21,
1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mr.
Eric Morrisette, Planner; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of
Engineering; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of
July 7, 1998, were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the July 15th Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Tice made the following statement: "There was an article in the paper after the Board
meeting in reference to the question of the family divisions. If the quotes of a couple of
supervisors were accurately reported in that article, I would like to make a comment for the
record. The sense of the comments was that the Commission, and in particular me, may
have been deliberately holding up family divisions waiting for the Board of Supervisors to
pass the changes to those requirements and implying that there was some politics involved
with that. I went back and checked by records. The issues I raised regarding family
divisions and private roads first came up, in my records, with the Greenwood Farm Bridge
application, in January or February, 1998. March 18th I made the first request to the staff to
call up family divisions for the Commission to review the issue of private roads. That was 4
months ago. It wasn't until May 19th that we had our public hearing on the Mountain
Ordinance, on which we recommended approval unanimously. It wasn't until June that the
Board considered the Mountain Ordinance and decided to defer it. It wasn't until May that
the applications for family divisions that are currently in question were even made to the
County. It wasn't until July 1 st, I believe, that the Board talked about making changes to the
family division part of the Subdivision Ordinance. So, the allegations, if they were accurately
reflected, that my actions and the Commission's actions were to deliberately hold up these
applications for the Board's action or out of revenge for the Mountain Ordinance are just
completely without basis, and, quite frankly, I find the comments reprehensible. It means, for
that to have occurred, on March 18th, when I asked the staff to call these up, I would have
somehow had to have known that certain individuals were going to be making family division
applications in May. I would have had to have known that the Board was going to defer
action on the Mountain Ordinance. I would have had to have known that the Board was
going, in July, to propose changes to the family division provisions. If I am that much of a
fortune teller I can think of a new calling for business."
CONSENT AGENDA - Farmington CountryClub One -Way -Circulation and One -Way
Ingress/Egress Request
/7/
7-21-98
Mr. Rooker said he would abstain from action or discussion of this request because he is a
member of Farmington.
No issues were raised by the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
Family Divisions - Section 4.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance - Discussion
Mr. Loewenstein said there are two issues before the Commission:
-There are a number of applications pending which need resolution.
--There are a number of questions raised by a Commissioner which have been
addressed by staff and which may require further study.
Mr. Cilimberg said he and the Zoning Administrator had conferred with the County Attorney
regarding 4.2.2.1, related to critical slopes and building sites, in an effort to reach
conclusions as to the effect of those sections on family divisions. After those discussions Mr.
Kamptner prepared a memo which speaks to the operation of 4.2.2.1 and related sections as
regards family divisions. That memo was distributed to Commissioners today, along with
another letter from a local attorney which described his opinion on family divisions and their
review under 4.2.2.1.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff would like for the Commission to agree with staffs finding that
"we have only so many things that we can do with family divisions, which we are doing under
our administrative review, and though the Commission can review these family divisions, we
have advised and found that the Commission's discretion is no greater than staffs So,
basically, you are in a position of dealing with these the way that we deal with these. By the
various interpretations and determinations that have been made regarding these sections, we
feel what we are doing now, with the family divisions, and, particularly, the private road
considerations, is appropriate. It may warrant changes to the Ordinance if you don't feel it is
working the way you would like it to work. That is a matter we would take up with you if that
is something you want to pursue. But, considering that, we can bring ail those family
divisions that have private roads to you individually, as Mr. Tice has requested, and we have
made you aware of some of them already. But we feel, with this information covered, the
Commission can go ahead and release those back to review by the staff, and does not
necessarily have to take those up in Commission meetings. We'd like you to decide one way
or the other tonight. We need that kind of decision. If you decide to do so, we'll go on with
business as it's been. If you decide you want to see those and review those, we will bring
them to you as they are ready to be reviewed by you, which means they will be added items
on your future agendas. At least the first two would need to come to you next Tuesday."
Mr. Finley asked if any action is required by the Commission to either hold or release family
divisions. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a current request from a Commission that certain
divisions --family divisions with private roads in the mountain areas --be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. He said: "To make things clean, if it is your decision to not review
i 7A
7-21-98
those and let those be reviewed as they have over some time, administratively, then it would
be good to take that action, to have that on the record."
Mr. Tice said, after having quickly reviewed Mr. Kamptner's most recent memo, he is still
confused about the application of accessways, including public utilities, and stormwater, and
other related things.
There was a discussion about the interpretation of 4.2.2.1 and its relation to various other
sections of the Ordinance. Mr. Kamptner explained how staff had reviewed the questions
raised by Mr. Tice and arrived at the conclusions set forth in the memo.
After hearing some of Mr. Kamptner's explanations, and referring to a statement contained in
the attorneys letter, Mr. Rooker asked: "Do you agree, that the 4.2.2.1 provisions could be
looked at at the time a building permit is issued for a particular lot?" Mr. Kamptner replied:
"Yes. And I think if you look at the last paragraph and the reference to accessways and the
fact that 4.2.2.1 deals with building sites, and an accessway is a driveway, that's when that
would be looked at because at the platting stage we don't have plans that show where the
house is going to be constructed, nor where the driveway is going to go. That may be the
only time when it is going to be looked at."
Mr. Tice said: "What happens then is that someone can submit a subdivision plat that
effectively eliminates any reasonable alternatives for the accessway, or other things, such
that the county is then in a position of having no choice but to approve such accessway
across critical slopes, when there might have been other alternatives. Mr. Kamptner
responded: "Yes. But our Subdivision Ordinance doesn't regulate the location of driveways
so that if they have complied with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance --lot size, lot
configuration, etc. --that just may be a hole in the Ordinance, if that's where we want to go
with it."
Using some drawings, Mr. Tice described a possible situation which could result in "all of the
slopes between my proposed private road and the building sites are in excess of 40%." He
said: "I think it is very relevant for us to look at this at the subdivision stage to address those
kinds of concerns."
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree with Mr. Tice, but the question is "whether or not the
current Ordinance permits us to take a look at this."
Mr. Tice replied: I understand that, and if it doesn't, then my suggestion is going to be that
this is an area that ought to be looked at and I am not going to suggest that we hold up the
existing applications to look into that further. But that is my concern."
Citing specific sections of the Ordinance, Mr. Tice explained why he disagrees with Mr.
Kamptner's interpretation of the applicability of various sections of the Ordinance to family
divisions. Mr. Kamptner responded in some detail. He concluded: "These ten or so
.. requirements that are listed, given the nature of family divisions, the desire that it be a simple
process, that the requirements be minimal --the Board made a decision that if these
requirements are satisfied, the issues related to public health, safety and welfare are
70
7-21-98 4
addressed, at least to the extent of family divisions. That is why we reached the conclusion
that we did, that 18-54(b) doesn't apply."
Mr. Rooker said he was somewhat in support of Mr. Kamptner's statements. He said: "In
18,54(b) it is not completely clear, when it says 'nothing herein', what the word 'herein' refers
to. Does it refer to the entire chapter or only to 18-547'
Mr. Tice said he feels it can be interpreted either way. He said: "I think that is an issue that
needs to be addressed."
Mr. Finley asked if the conclusions (those in bold type) in Mr. Kamptner's memo, either
"reduce or increase what staff or the Agent is presently doing in the review of family
divisions." Mr. Kamptner replied: 1 think we reached the conclusion that there is no change.
This is how it's been applied."
Citing various sections of the Ordinance, Mr. Tice continued to explain his interpretation of
the applicability of these sections to family divisions. He raised questions about the
application of the opening paragraph of Section 18-55. Mr. Kamptner said his memo had not
addressed that paragraph. Mr. Keeler explained: Earlier you said that the Ordinance says
that all transactions are subdivisions, but it says 'notwithstanding all divisions of land shall be
deemed subdivisions for the sole purpose of the application of Section 18-13b.' That doesn't
bring it under the whole Ordinance, it just brings it under 18-13b, and family divisions comply
,,� with the provisions of 18-13b."
Mr. Loewenstein asked: "Where are we going with this?"
Mr. Tice replied: "There is inconsistent interpretation, it seems to me, and I think it is an
issue that needs to be looked at ."
Mr. Kamptner explained the basis for his interpretation. Mr. Tice continued to argue for his
interpretation.
To move the discussion along, Mr. Nitchmann suggested the Commission take an action as
requested by staff in relation to the pending applications. The question of whether or not to
study Mr. Tice's concerns further can then be taken up at the end of the meeting. He said
he, personally, does not want to become a "technologist in our Subdivision Ordinance." He
trusted the County staff to offer guidance in these decisions.
Mr. Tice raised no objection to Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion. He said he had just wanted to
raise four issues, and " future Commissions and the Board can decide if these are issues
they want to have studied." The four issues raised by Mr. Tice are as follows: [NOTE: The
following transcription was provided to the Recording Secretary by Mr. Tice and is reproduced
verbatim for these minutes.]
%w, (1) The ability of the County to consider provisions of 4.2.2.1 (Zoning Ordinance) in review of family
divisions (and, for that matter, subdivisions in general)...
/7f
7-21-98
—the ability to review whether a proposed division creates situations in which there are no
alternatives than to violate critical slopes (when there might have been altematives with a different lot
configuration).
(2) The applicability of Zoning Ordinance provision 18-54(b).
--Why doesn't "nothing herein..." include Section 18-57? In other words, how can family
divisions be exempt from this provision (even though it's not specifically listed) since "nothing
herein...", not even 18-57, "...shall require...."
(3) The applicability of the opening paragraph of 18-36.
--When Section 18-57 references sub -paragraphs of 18-46, it is my position that the opening
paragraph of 18-36 is part -and -parcel of the relevant sub -paragraphs.
(4) Circumvention.
--Section 18-57 requires that family division cannot be used to circumvent the Subdivision
Ordinance. If an application for a regular subdivision is rejected by the BOS because it is not in
compliance with the Ordinance, then the applicant re -submits virtually the same plan as a family
division, why isn't that "circumvention"?
After Mr. Tice's questions about circumvention, Mr. Keeler commented: "This all goes back
to the Code, and the General Assembly putting the provision in the Code for family division,
that protected it, to a great extent, from the application of subdivision regulations. That was
the intent of the General Assembly. And it was very limited as to what we could do under
the provision that we adopted family divisions under."
Mr. Loewenstein said any future discussions on the questions raised by Mr. Tice which the
Commission might decide to address should be preceded by additional work with staff and
the County Attorney's office.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the staff continue to review
family divisions administratively, as they have done in the past.
There was a debate as to whether or not the motion releases the 7 pending applications for
staff action.
Because Mr. Tice had called these applications before the Commission, Mr. Rieley
suggested the motion to release them should be made by Mr. Tice.
Mr. Nitchmann offered to withdraw his motion, but he did not formally do so.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved to release the pending applications for staff to handle
according to staffs normal procedures. (There was no second to this motion.)
Mr. Nitchmann reminded the Commission that his motion was still on the floor. He made the
following substitute motion.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the 7 pending family
division applications, located in the mountain protection area, which were brought to the
/ 7,�_
7-21-98
N
lv ' Commission at Mr. Tice's request, be released to staff to handle according to staffs normal
procedures.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Tice formally withdrew his request for Planning Commission review of future family
division requests in the mountain area.
Mr. Cilimberg said he believes some of the questions about how sections of the Ordinance
work in relation to each other will be addressed by the recodification of the Ordinance which
will be acted on by the Board in August.
Mr. Loewenstein said: "In light of that, I suggest that we look further at this with an eye
towards deciding how we want to pursue it after that codification has taken place."
Mr. Rooker commented: "I have one other point on this, that staff perform the 4.2.2.1 review
in the circumstances where an erosion and sediment control plan is required, or when a
building permit is issued for family divisions. It seems to me that the County Attorney opined
that he agreed with the Richmond and Fishburne letter which states that the 4.2.2.1 review
can be made at that time."
Mr. Kamptner responded: "With the limitations that go along with the E & S reviews --that
1 you have to have 10,000 square feet of disturbed area in a subdivision. The E & S review
may be at the initial stage, but there may be standing requirements that address each lot as
it develops."
Mr. Rooker said the attorney's letter seems to say it is an "either/or" situation --"when an
E & S plan is required or when a building permit is issued. I would request if the County
Attorney agrees with that interpretation of the Ordinance, that that review be performed at the
time the building permit is issued as well --if that's your interpretation of the Ordinance."
The Zoning Administrator, Ms. McCulley, was asked to comment on "how the Zoning
Department would apply that."
Ms. McCulley said if the residential building inspectors identify concerns about a driveway,
such as slope or erosion, they will ask the Engineering Department to look at the driveway.
"But it is not the kind of thing that is typically shown on the building permit application."
Mr. Rooker said: "My preference would be that the review be more extensive than that, but I
don't know if under the existing Ordinance, the procedure provides for that."
Mr. Kamptner asked: To what extent has the practice been so far in working with an owner
to look at alternative driveway alignment?" Ms. McCulley responded: "I would need to do
more research to give a better answer. That is not something that is done by the Zoning
Inspectors. We don't go out to individual home sites. The residential inspectors do. So I am
not certain. Typically, there will be limitations that make it very clear how somebody is going
176
7-21-98
to access the site --things like streams and other features that are going to clearly indicate
how they will access the building site."
The Commission concluded this is another issue which deserves further study.
SP 98-23 Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building - Request for a special use permit, in
accord with provisions of Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the printing and
distribution of church literature, and for a prophet's chamber, in a 3,040 square foot building
to be constructed adjacent to the existing church on 10.389 acres of land located on U.S.
Route 250 East, .7 mile east of S.R. 744 (Hacktown Road), in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. The property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 46, is zoned RA Rural Area, and
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is not located within a designated
development area. A site plan showing proposed development of the property is being
reviewed concurrently with this Special Use Permit request.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Referring to a statement in the staff report that there will be no pollution impact related to
the printing operation", Mr. Tice asked how this printing operation is different from other
commercial printing operations. Ms. Pickart said the scale proposed is smaller than a typical
commercial printing operation. Mr. Loewenstein noted that the Zoning Administrator had
pointed out that changes in technology have lessened the pollution impact.
Mr. Rieley said on this type of institutional use there is usually a condition requiring that
exterior lighting be fully shielded. Ms. Pickart responded: "That requirement would apply."
The applicant was represented by Reverend Ed Leake. He said the request is for a
'prophets chambers to provide overnight accommodations for visiting ministers and for the
operational printing and distribution of gospel literature. The church views the printing "as
incidental and accessory to the church and it's mission of outreach." Addressing Mr. Tice's
question about pollution, he said, "with today's technology there is no environmental hazard."
All leftover paper and materials are recycled and cleanup is handled through a commercial
laundry service. Cleanup cloths will be taken away and cleaned weekly. He expressed
concern about the condition limiting hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. He said this
could present problems in those instances where a late night or weekend shift might be
necessary to meet a deadline. He also expressed concern about the limitation to "no more
than 4 commercial delivery trucks per month." He said the cleaning service alone would use
up all the allowed commercial deliveries. Other normal deliveries include trash pickup and
UPS. He pointed out that VDOT has no concerns about increased traffic. The applicant
had no concerns about any of the other proposed conditions.
Applicant answers to specific Commission questions were as follows:
--The printed material is in support of the church's 56 worldwide missions. The
NIftW material is distributed free of charge. Some is shipped overseas. Presently, the employees
are unpaid volunteers, but the intent is to have paid staff in the future. Printing volume may
77
7-21-98 8
vary from 1,000 documents per month, to 20,000 per month. That number could reach as
high as 50,000 per month in the future.
--The applicant feels one delivery per day would be a more feasible number.
--The on -site equipment will be high-speed duplicators and small off -set presses.
Preliminary plans provide room for 4 or 5 off -set presses. Those presses will not all operate
at the same time. Web presses are preferred. Cloths used to clean up solvents and inks
will be handled by a linen cleaning service. No solvents will go into drains or the septic
system.
--The church presently has 115 members.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked staff if this type of request would be allowed as a home occupation in
the rural area. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Certainly not as regards the number of
employees. It exceeds the maximum allowance. Mr. Nitchmann said that though he
understands the church's intent of using the publications as a part of its ministry, the scale of
what is proposed sounds like a printing business." He could recall requests for home
occupations where neighbors have been concerned about one UPS delivery every -other -day.
He said deliveries of paper for what is proposed (20,000 to 50,000 publications per month)
may be made in anything from a UPS truck to an 18-wheeler. He questioned how staff could
support a request for a "commercial enterprise" to this extent in the rural area.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff discussed the question of whether this could be considered a
commercial activity in the rural area, which is the basis for the proposed conditions. He said
the four commercial delivery trucks per month are intended to be those which are associated
with the printing activity. It was not intended to include any type of commercial vehicle, such
as trash trucks or cleaning service trucks. He said staff tried to view the printing operation
as an activity associated with the church, as some other activities are which are not in
keeping with home occupations or general rural area activities. "When you have a church in
the rural area there are things associated with it that are not necessarily under our ordinance
considered to meet the intent of the rural areas, but they are considered a use allowable by
special use permit. We were trying to judge this on whether or not it was, as an activity
associated with the church, going over the line of what would be considered a reasonable
activity vs. a commercial activity."
Mr. Loewenstein said there are two questions: (1) Whether or not the activity is related to
church use; and (2) The scale and impact of the proposal. He said he became concerned
when the applicant said there may be 5 off -set presses. Being familiar with the printing
business, Mr.Loewenstein said the scale of this sounds like it is going well beyond what the
application,on its face, is representing.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think this application should be treated any differently because
it is a church and connected with religion. "We have to look at in light of the fact that a
private individual might want to make the same kind of application. Would we approve it for
a private individual who wanted to espouse his views around the world? To me, the scope of
activity here is pretty extensive."
l?'r
7-21-98 9
Mr. Finley pointed out that churches engage in a number of different non-profit activities, such
as the distribution of food and printing of literature. He said here there are 115 people who
want to operate this business to distribute materials to needy people, whereas in a home
occupation there would only be one person. He said: "It sounds like a pretty good thing to
me." He asked if churches that distribute food are considered a commercial enterprise. Mr.
Rooker responded: If they make the food they would be. If they were just distributing pre-
printed information for religious purposes, I would view this entirely differently. If they started
manufacturing food that they wanted to distribute around the world, I don't think we would
necessarily approve that."
Mr. Nitchmann said the distribution of food by churches is more a case of local parishioners
reaching out to the neighborhood and the region. "This is talking about printing material in
foreign languages and shipping it to foreign countries."
Mr. Rooker added: "And they are talking about 12 hours a day of potential operation and it
was indicated that might not be enough."
Mr. Rieley asked those Commissioners who are familiar with off -set presses to describe their
concerns. Mr. Loewenstein said this kind of scale, even with today's technology, is going to
require a significant amount of cleanup because printing is a messy business. Some of the
cleaning materials can be toxic. He also expressed concerns about noise, employee traffic
and the amount of deliveries that will be needed.
Mr. Rooker said if the request was for a single press, operating a few hours a day to produce
religious materials related to the church, he would feel differently.
Mr. Loewenstein said he thought, originally, that was exactly what was being requested, but
what the applicant described is considerably different.
Mr. Finley asked how this proposal compares to a day-care operation because a lot of
churches have day care facilities. Mr. Loewenstein said he thinks the scale of this operation,
potentially, goes beyond the scale of a day care operation.
Mr. Rieley said he will defer to superior knowledge, but his instinct is to be supportive
because it is a charitable operation and seems to be an associated use with the church. He
noted that no neighbors are present to express their concerns. (Mr. Loewenstein later
wondered if there might have been neighborhood concerns if the potential scale of the
request had been known.) Mr. Rieley pointed out that the church has access onto Rt. 250
and "it's not like it goes through a large rural area." He said he has mixed feelings.
Mr. Loewenstein said he visited the site and unless the operation becomes really "high scale"
he doubts that the additional vehicle trips/day will have any significant impact. The sight
distances are adequate.
There was a discussion of the applicant's request for an increase in the number of deliveries
allowed. The applicant requested one/day, and the proposed condition of 4/month is
significantly less than that. Mr. Tice said given the traffic on Rt. 250, the difference between
171
7-21-98 10
4 deliveries/month vs. 1 delivery/day will be "imperceptible." Ms. Washington wondered if the
applicant's request for 1/day had included cleaning service deliveries, trash and UPS. Rev.
Leake confirmed that 1 delivery/day ( or 20/month) included all types of deliveries. He said
he believes the number of deliveries will actually decrease (from what is presently occurring)
because the new building will have more storage space.
Mr. Tice said that though he had been inclined to support the request, Commissioners
Rooker, Nitchmann and Loewenstein have raised some valid concerns.
Mr. Nitchmann said the issue is not how many deliveries to allow, rather "it is a fundamental
question --are we going to allow a commercial enterprise in the rural area?" Having 3 or 4
off -set presses in a building, shipping products worldwide, employing 4 or 5 people,
"becomes a business," whether or not it is for profit.
Mr. Leake was asked about the anticipated hours of operation. He said 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. is
"more than our intent" but there is a concern because of those times when it might be
necessary to work later to meet a deadline. He said it would "generally" be a Monday
through Friday operation. He guessed the presses would be operating 3 days/week, 8
hrs/day. He confirmed that the printing operation includes binding.
Mr. Finley asked how a commercial enterprise is defined.
Mr. Nitchmann responded: "If I came and asked to do this as a home occupation in the rural
area, at this scale, it would not have even gotten to this stage." He said a home occupation
is limited to 1,500 square feet and this proposal is for 3,000. A home occupation is limited to
a family member plus one other, and this is for 5 employees. He said: "I think this could
open up a Pandora's box for us."
Mr. Nitchmann questioned how a congregation of 115 could afford to finance this type of
operation.
Mr. Rieley asked how a request from a school might be viewed, if it were proposing to
expand offerings and teach printing, using 5 off -set presses. Mr. Loewenstein responded: "I
can assure you that I don't know of any school in this county large enough to set up a
printing operation that would require 5 off -set presses for teaching purposes --not even close."
Mr. Rooker said if the request were for a single press he would not be as concerned as he is
about 5 presses.
No Commission concerns were expressed about the request for a prophet's chamber.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the prophet's chamber for
SP 98-23 Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval, subject to the following condition, but that the printing use be
recommended for denial because of the proposed scale of the operation-
/ Y0
7-21-98 11
1. Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non -worship uses will require
amendment to this petition.
The motion passed 6:1 with Commissioner Finley casting the dissenting vote.
SP 98-25 Virginia National Bank - Proposal to re-establish use of the drive -through windows
for a bank in accord with the provisions of Section 24.2.2(13) of the Zoning Ordinance. This
site was previously used as a bank, but the use was discontinued, and, therefore, a special
use permit is required to re -open the drive -through windows. The property, described as Tax
Map 61, Parcel 120Z, is located south of and adjacent to the Brown's Auto Dealership
opposite Fashion Square Mall in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is zoned HC, Highway
Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is recommended for
Regional Service in Urban Neighborhood 1.
and
SDP 98-070 Virginia National Bank Minor Amendment - Internal Circulation Waiver Request
and Angled Parking Waiver Request.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the special permit
and the waivers.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. He said the building has been
improved and some parking has been added. He offered to answer Commission questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
No concerns were raised by the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-25 for Virginia National
Bank be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following
condition:
1. Drive -through windows will be limited to four (4) (three traditional and one ATM window).
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the requests for the internal
circulation waiver and the angled parking waiver be approved for SDP 98-070 / Virginia
National Bank Minor Amendment, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-
pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan amendment.
2. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB.
7-21-98
4%..' The motion passed unanimously.
12
SDP 98-040 Stony Point Elementary School Grading and Parking Lot Additions - Proposal to
construct a play field and parking lot addition at Stony Point Elementary. Property, described
as Tax Map 48, Parcel 17 is the location of Stony Point Elementary. This site is zoned VR,
Village Residential and is in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated development area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He
passed out copies of a letter from an adjacent landowner, Mr. Alfred C. Shackelford, III.
Referring to concerns raised by an adjacent landowner, Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Fritz knows
what the gradients are off the corner of the field. Mr. Fritz replied: "They're 2:1 slopes that
come down from the field."
Referring to the letter from Mr. Shackelford, Mr. Loewenstein asked staff if it is true that
Stony Point Fire Department has offered use of its property as a means of access to the
field. Based on discussions with the Engineering Department, Mr. Fritz said use of the Fire
Department's property has been discussed in the past but what would be required for that to
take place has not been finalized, i.e. "would it be a purchase or a gift, what type of access
what type of design?"
The applicant was invited to address the Commission, but declined. (He did address the
Commission after the public comment.)
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Alfred Shackelford, Jr. addressed the Commission. He explained that the letter just
passed to the Commission was from his son, who is close to the school but not adjacent.
He said his letter was already in the Commission's packet. He urged the Commission to
approve the alternate site. He felt the close proximity of the field to his property would lower
the value of his property as a potential building site. He was concerned about potential
erosion onto his property and about the use of the field which will take place after school
hours. He said his woods are often used for "activities he would rather not be liable for." He
said the property which is proposed for the field is in an area of steep slopes, has some
beautiful trees, and is currently used by the school as a nature trail. He also expressed
concern about potential damage to the church property. He said the Fire Department
property is preferable because it is public property and this field would not impact the value
of that property. The Fire Department is occupied at all times and would offer some
monitoring of the field after school hours. He said it is his understanding that the principal of
the school favors the alternative site also because it can be built without damaging the
existing amphitheater. He acknowledged that there is a septic field adjacent to the
alternative site, but he believed there would still be room to fit in the field.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Shackelford if he is aware that one of the proposed conditions of
approval will require that there be screening of the field from his property, including a fence.
/ ?A
7-21-98 13
Mr. Shackelford said the plan he saw showed a fence around the field, but it would not
preclude access to his property. He said he would prefer to have the fence on the property
boundary of both his property and the church's property. Mr. Fritz said the fence could easily
be placed along the property line. Mr. Rooker said the condition may need to be clarified
somewhat, but he believes it will satisfy some of Mr. Shackelford's concerns.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Shackelford how much after -school activity currently takes place,
and how much of that is school -related vs. neighborhood recreation. Mr. Shackelford
responded: " I pass along the road and see ball games and other uses that are not school
related. The school related activities are not what I am concerned about.... I am more
concerned about what happens off the field, and that will be a much more isolated field there
than it has been along the road."
The applicant's representative, Mr. Steve Hart, addressed the Commission. He described
and compared the two drawings which were on display, one showing the proposed site and
the other showing the alternative site. His comments included the following:
--This is a difficult site. Four proposed locations for the field have been analyzed.
The entire site is covered with hardwoods, so all options will require the removal of the same
amount of trees. He described the disadvantages of the alternative locations, including a
potential location on the Fire Department property.
--A minimum width is proposed for the field to cause the least impact to the site.
--The two main concerns are the impact to the adjacent landowner and the existing
nature trail on the eastern part of the site. Another concern is the septic field on the south
end of the site. The exact location of the septic field is not known.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is clear that the drainfield problem does not exist with the preferred
alternative. Mr. Hart responded affirmatively.
Mr. Finley asked if the amphitheater would have to be removed if the field was moved toward
the firehouse. Mr. Hart responded affirmatively. The amphitheater was described as "a pre-
built wood structure set down in a valley with hardwoods surrounding it." The school uses it
for presentations and the school's principal would like for it to be undisturbed.)
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Hart if he is aware of which option the principal prefers. Mr. Hart
responded: "She didn't express the preferred option that we could remove the amphitheater
originally, no. I don't feel you can satisfy all parties in this situation."
Mr. Rieley asked if the alternative site has a balanced cut -and -fill, as does the preferred site.
Mr. Hart said they are fairly equivalent.
Mr. Hart said the field will be minimum width for children's soccer.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that construction of a field at Stony Point Elementary was noted in the
Community Facilities Plan many years ago and has been in the CIP for a number of years
and "it is not only part of the school activities, but is also part of the efforts of using the
schools as community parks."
/8,5
7-21-98
14
Mr. Hart confirmed that the drawing of the alternative site shows a field that is 15-20 feet
wider than the one on the preferred site.
Mr. Rieley commended the applicant for providing a drawing of not only the preferred site,
but also the alternative site.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he believes the adjacent property owner's concerns must be considered.
He suggested the screening be increased to a double row of trees and fencing along the
property line. He said he knows these fields get a lot of use.
Mr. Finley wondered if reducing the width of the field on the alternative site would still impact
the amphitheater. Mr. Fritz said it is a combination of the access and the length and is not
just the width that is impacting the amphitheater.
Mr. Rieley asked staff to comment on the "value" of the amphitheater. Mr. Fritz responded:
"it is a wooden stage out of pressure treated wood, 20' x 20', with a sloping hill that serves
as the seating area to it, and some stairs that come down to it and some architectural
features." Noting that Stony Point does not have central air conditioning, Ms. Washington
added that it is an alternative to using the auditorium during hot weather.
Mr. Rooker said he has a concern about the alternative site's potential interference with the
septic field. He said: "I'd hate to approve that and find out we have a real problem with that
drainage field."
Ms. Washington said she understood Mr. Shackelford's concerns would be lessened with
increased screening and fencing of both his property and the church's. She said she would
support the applicant's preferred plan, with additional screening required.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SDP 98-040 for Stony Point
Elementary School be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan amendment shall not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Engineering Department approval to include:
(1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
(2) Drainage plans and calculations.
b. Planning Department approval to include:
(1) Boxwire fencing along the property line designed to prevent pedestrian
access from the playing field to adjacent residential property to the east and the
church property. (NOTE: Boxwire fencing was added at Mr. Rieley's request. No objections
were raised by the Commission.)
(2) Planting of a double row of screening trees planted 10 feet on center
adjacent to the residential property to the east and the church property.
/001�
7-21-98
The motion passed unanimously.
15
Mr. Fritz clarified: "When you say the church property I am assuming that the fencing and
the landscaping is only along that portion adjacent to the playing field and not where the
existing parking area is." Mr. Rooker agreed. There were no other Commissioner responses
to Mr. Fritz's statement.
SDP 98-060 Westminster Canterbury Assisted Living Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
construct an assisted living facility of approximately 45,900 square feet on property zoned
PRD, Planned Residential Development, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A, 55A5, and 55A6, is located on the north
side of State Route 250 East (Richmond Road), within the existing Westminster Canterbury
community. This property is located within the Rivanna Magisterial District and is designated
for Urban Density in the Urban Neighborhood 3.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. He explained that staff requested Planning
Commission review because of numerous letters of concern received from residents of
Westminster Canterbury. He summarized the concerns and offered some comments:
--Close proximity of the proposed assisted living facility to the existing cottages. (At
the closest point the proposed facility comes within 40 feet of the cottages.)
--Light pollution.
--Loss of parking. (No additional parking will be needed for the new facility because
the residents will not be able to drive.)
--Erosion and runoff impact to cottages down slope. (Engineering visited the site and
it was determined that the bulk of the runoff comes from adjacent yards and roof drains. All
runoff from this facility will be collected in appropriate detention facilities and may improve
existing problems with rapid ponding on one site.)
--Loss of aesthetic resources. (A grove of small young trees will be removed and an
existing man-made terrace slope. The applicant is proposing landscaping in this area. )
--Three-story scale is too large and is on a hill above the cottages. (The proposed
facility will require ARB issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.)
--Noise from delivery and maintenance trucks. (The loading area has been relocated
from the west side of the building to the east side of the building, which is further away from
the existing cottages.)
Mr. Morrissette noted that Westminster Canterbury "has sole ownership of these structures
and facilities in this planned development so the residents within the community are subject
to the design criteria that Westminster has established. " He said Westminster Canterbury
has revised the site plan to address the concerns of the residents. Retaining walls have
been removed, the loading area has been relocated, and the size of the building has been
reduced slightly. Efforts have been made to keep residents aware of the current
development proposals.
Mr. Morrisette reminded the Commission that this is a by -right use and the use is not before
the Commission. The use was addressed during the Board of Supervisors August 8, 1997
hearing to allow for the rezoning of 28 additional acres. The Application Plan was adopted at
/Y,6--
7-21-98 16
that time, though it did not limit the chronology of phasing nor did it reflect the location of
buildings or footprints. The Commission's review is confined to the aspects of the site plan
regulations in Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance. Objectionable aspects of the operation
raised by residents in Westminster, such as traffic, appearance, lighting and stormwater
runoff control are being addressed through the site review process. Other objectionable
aspects of the operation that residents have concern over, such as property values, site
location and scale of the structure, are a matter of use which are not subject to site plan
review regulations.". The plan is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, but has
not yet been submitted for review.
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan and approval of the critical slope
waiver request, curvilinear parking waiver request and on -way circulation waiver request,
subject to conditions.
Mr. Rooker asked if there had been any representation about the size of the building at the
time the PRD was approved in 1997. Mr. Keeler said only the footprint had been reflected,
but the location was not tied down. Mr. Rooker asked if the height of the building had been
discussed. Mr. Morrisette said he believes some heights were discussed. "The height of the
building in the front was discussed at about 4 stories." Mr. Keeler said he knows definitively
that the height of the buildings in front were discussed, but the additions were basically
described as being the same scale as the existing building. Mr. Morrisette said he had
reviewed minutes of the Board meeting and could find no discussion about the size of this
building. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not recall there having been discussion about specific
sizes, but there was a general presentation that there would be buildings in different areas to
scale with the nearby buildings. The action of the Board made no restrictions as to height or
square footage.
Mr. Loewenstein asked what is envisioned by "heavy landscaping," as referred to by the
applicant. Mr. Morrisette said he has not seen a landscape plan. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out
that landscaping would be an element of the ARB review. Mr. Morrisette said the ARB's
review will focus on the aesthetic view from Rt. 250, and "is not a review to appease the
concerns of the residents."
Mr. Rooker asked if there is something that can be done, in the overall erosion and sediment
control plan, about the "ponding" problem which is occurring near one of the cottages.
Mr. Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering, said a requirement of the final site plan will be a
review of the erosion and sediment control plan [condition 1(b)(1)]. He confirmed that the
applicant's engineer has determined that this plan is unrelated to the existing problem. He
was uncertain of the exact location where the ponding is occurring, but described the
condition that is causing the ponding. He said it is difficult to say whether or not the E & S
plan will decrease the amount of runoff that is going into that area, "but it is certainly not
going to make it worse." Particular care will be taken to protect that area during the
construction process.
Mr. Rooker asked about the difference in elevation between the proposed building site and
the nearby cottages. Mr. Kelsey estimated it to be 20-25 feet difference.
M
7-21-98
Applicant comment was invited.
17
Speaking for the applicant were Ron Crawford, Kurt Gloeckner, and Henry Hennit. They
described the plan in some detail. Their comments included the following:
--Two additional buildings shown on the plan ("two red blocks connected together in
the upper left corner of the site") are future single -story, Memory Impaired facilities.
--The location chosen for this facility is the only logical location on the site. It is
positioned so as to make the facilities on the first floor of the Health Care facility easily
accessible to the residents of this building. A "closed bridge" will connect the two units.
--There was no size established for this building during the rezoning, "but it has
always been anticipated to provide between 40 and 45 assisted living units." 42 units are
proposed and it has always been envisioned to be a 3-story building.
--An effort has been made to minimize the impact to the cottage residents. The part of
the building closest to the cottages is only 48 feet wide. (The original design was for a 90
foot wide wall in that location.) That part of the building also has a sloping roof, which tends
to make it appear smaller.
--The closest cottage to the building is 40 feet distant. The other two places where
the building is adjacent to the cottages are 60 feet and 70 feet distant, which allows a very
adequate area for landscaping.
--There is more than adequate parking available.
--The existing bank which is between the Health Care Center and the Assisted Living
Facility is an "unmaintained, ungroomed, man-made bank. The plans are to make this a
nicely landscaped slope with retaining wall at the bottom and top to ease the slope. There is
presently very little landscaping.
--It is believed the erosion plan will help any existing problems with runoff. All the
runoff will be taken off site, underground.
--Floor-to-floor heights have been kept to a minimum to keep the overall height of the
building down.
--The building will be similar in size to other existing buildings and the architecture will
be complimentary. This building will be predominantly brick.
--it is believed the noise associated with this facility will be minimal.
--Only a small section of critical slope is being built on and the size of the slope will
actually be reduced by the use of retaining walls and stepping the hillside at a lower grade
than it presently exists. The slope will be landscaped heavily.
--The building was originally designed for 45,419 square feet. It has been reduced to
41,642 square feet.
--Mr. Gloeckner described the existing ponding problem. He said it doesn't actually
pond, but there is a great deal of water that runs through the yards during storms, on its
way to the catch basins, "that work sufficiently well." During very heavy storms, the swale
fills up to some degree, and though it does not impact the houses, it makes the backyards
wet. That runoff is coming, not from higher on the site, but from the rooftops and yards
around those cottages. The work that is going to be done up above will not increase that
runoff and it may decrease it once the engineering has been done. He did not know if the
runoff in the swale would be reduced because the drainage is working the way it is supposed
to be working under normal conditions.
--The one-way circulation and curvilinear parking will improve the existing traffic
circulation.
/8%
7-21-98 18
--The water lines and sanitary sewer lines will not impact the cottages. Care will be
+ale r-1 in +hc AAM ainnMaM of +hn i_ R.Q Plonc +n nrn+on+ +ho rn++�noc holn��i rl, irinn +hn
M. ,av,,, a„v vvrvrvr v is v, u v v w v, av r+ vavva alv aagyvv v as y u,a+
construction stage.
--Lighting will be diverted so as not to impact the cottages. The parking lot will be
me++%l m1 it-h li+ h%r cvic+inn linh+inn
N,oaay ,,,aav„ na a y v^IoLn t
--The grading between the building and the cottages will be made "gentler," and will
be heavily landscaped. The young trees that are starting to grow will be replaced with
U sicker vegetation.
--Mr. Hennit described the accreditation of WCBR and the levels of care provided by
the facility. The facility has the discretion to move residents, when the need arises because
of a health failure, from one type of facility to another. "There is no ownership on the part of
any resident and no equity on the part of any resident in the facility." WCBR is a non-profit
facility affiliated with the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches. Residents have been
involved in the planning process for a number of years. Residents have served on the
strategic planning committee. The original plans of the Founding Board were for the facility
to be twice, or a little over, its current size. Development was phased back in the beginning
because of the establishment of other similar facilities which was taking place at the same
time. This "expansion" is actually a buildout of the plans of the original Founding Board. A
Resident Advisory Committee was assembled this spring when complaints began to be heard
about the location of this proposed building, and that committee has acted as a liaison and
as a means of communication between management and residents.
--New property which has been acquired is not suitable for the Assisted Living usage
because it is too far from the existing Health Care center. They need to be close together
for the functionality of the operation.
-"If this growth does not take place ... we are not economically efficient. We are
operating at somewhat of a deficit until we can broaden the revenue base with both these
new units as well as the new apartments. VI./ithout this building or these units, we are
already cram -packed from the standpoint of a census in our Health Care Center and
residents would need to be, perhaps, placed elsewhere, if we can find beds ... This building is
being built for the needs of the current residents and sized for the needs of the additional
residents moving into the new apartments."
-"We have a Certificate of Public Need issued by the State of Virginia to convert
some nursing beds in conjunction with this development. If we do not move forward at a
rather rapid pace --we are already a month or two behind --then our Certificate of Public Need
becomes in jeopardy and we may not be able to convert or obtain the sufficient number of
nursing beds that we need."
--"We cannot continue to operate with this deficit and the rates that we charge will
have to skyrocket if we are not able to grow into the broader base of revenue which we plan
to do."
The cottage residents have been offered the opportunity to move to another cottage,
at WCBR's expense. Since that offer was made, "we have filled our vacant cottages, but the
offer still stands and if any of them would like to put their name on a list,...any of these
residents have the opportunity to move at our expense, which would take them away from
the construction and away from the building. (Mr. Loewenstein asked if these names would
be placed ahead of any others which might be on the waiting list. Mr. Hennit responded
affirmatively, adding "but we don't have applicants actively seeking a new cottage right now
from our internal list."
If
7-21-98
19
14fto- --It is in the best interests of Westminster Canterbury to move ahead with this
application. "We are dealing with 6 cottages--8,10, or 12 people --when our current
responsibility is to care for over 200 residents in the entire facility as it exists. We will be
caring for some 400 residents when it is built out."
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Crawford if any thought was given to decreasing the size of the
building which is near the cottages, and increasing the part of the building that is away from
the cottages. Mr. Crawford said all possibilities have been considered, but "part of the
problem is if you start increasing the size of the rear wing, you start pushing the driveways --
which have to tie in with the existing parking areas --further forward and closer to the
cottages. It is also important that the residents of the Assisted Living facility have access to
the best views available, and the best views are looking over 250 towards Monticello.
Mr. Finley asked if residents of the cottages might at some time be expected to move to the
Assisted Care unit. Mr. Crawford said any resident of the campus could be a resident of the
Assisted Care unit at some future time. "That's why this facility is being built --to
accommodate the needs of the residents of Westminster Canterbury, whether they live in
cottages or the apartment building."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Hennit if there had been, at any time, a conceptual drawing of this
facility. Mr. Hennit replied: Not until 1995 when this drawing was made. We have a little
model of the original 25 acres that we show people when they come in, and there is blank
space on it, and we have always mentioned --in this blank space --we will be bigger and we
will be building something. But until we went through the strategic planning process, with
residents on that committee, we did not have a finalization of where you would locate a
particular building or a particular cottage.... After reviewing other facilities in and out of state,
we adopted a Plan 2000 Plus, which is in the resident library, and we commissioned at that
time a Master Plan which was later adopted by the Board of Directors and shared
immediately with the residents and placed in the resident library.'Mr. Finley asked how
many residents were on the committee. Mr. Hennit replied: "There were three Board
members, three professional staff members, and two residents --one the Chairman of the
Residents' Council, and the other a founding board member and a current resident."
The meeting recessed from 10:30 to 10:40.
Before opening the meeting for public comment, the Commission made the decision to defer
(because of the lateness of the hour) discussion of the last agenda item, a Work Session on
the proposed Springridge PRD, to 6:00 p.m. on July 28th. The Chair asked if there was
anyone present who was opposed to the work session being deferred. No opposition was
expressed.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Work Session on
Springridge PRD be deferred to July 28th, 6.00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
M
7-21-98 20
The Chair invited public comment on the Westminster Canterbury Assisted Living Preliminary
Site Plan.
Mr. Don Sandridge, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chairman of the Long -
Range Planning Committee, said the Board really struggled with the short-term issue of
concerns of a few current residents vs. the need to assure that the facility will meet the
needs of a number of generations of people. The presence of this Assisted Living facility will
be a known factor for future generations, and there will be no surprises. A number of
changes were made in the design, size and location of the building and changes were made
related to the impact to the site. A large number of the issues which are addressable have
been addressed. [NOTE: Though Mr. Sandridge's comments came at the end of the applicant's
presentation, because he said he was not a representative of the applicant, his comments are
included with the public comment.
Mr. Ed Lowry, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. James 011er and Ms. Hathaway,
residents of the cottages, addressed the Commission. He asked that those present who
oppose the request to stand. (Approximately 6 persons stood in response to Mr. Lowry's
request.) He presented a petition of opposition which he said contained 51 signatures of
residents in WCBR. He presented photographs of the location of the proposed building in
relation to the cottages, and of the existing bank between the cottages and the proposed
building. He stressed that the residents of the WCBR did not enter into their contracts
casually. They were marketed to come to the facility and they signed contracts that cost
them over $200,000 initially, and they pay, in addition, $2,000 per month, or more, in rent on
one -bedroom cottages. They chose WCBR for its ambiance, peace and quiet. He asked the
Commission to image how these people felt when they learned that they will be able to step
off their patio and see a feature which looms 70 feet above their house, within 40-foot of its
back door. In addition, they will be subject to 18-20 months of heavy construction activity.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Lowry if his clients' concerns are not somewhat ameliorated by the fact
that they are offered the opportunity to move to other cottages which may not be impacted
by this building. Mr. Lowry responded: "I think that is a misconception of the earlier
presentation. My clients are not opposed to this building. They are fully aware of the need
for services. What they are urging is a redesign of the building that would be more
acceptable and easier for them to tolerate, and 1 believe no alternatives have been presented
to you except the one, with some minor changes." Mr. Rooker asked if there are any
specific recommendations for alterations to the building. Mr. Lowry said: "We have ideas
but my clients are not architects, nor am I. We would like to have the opportunity to explore
those ideas with the architects." Mr. Rooker said the applicant had indicated that the
residents had had the opportunity to provide input about the building. Mr. Lowry replied:
"We have limited information about that. None of the people directly effected were on that
committee and none of the people directly effected saw the plans until the were reported 'out'
and shown to them and that is when the first hue and cry went out that achieved some
modest redesign. But neither my clients nor any of the other people directly effected, to my
knowledge, were then consulted directly ... to try to work out a re -design. They would
welcome that opportunity. The feel they were presented with a fait accompli which departed
substantially from what they were led to believe when they first moved there."
/ 9�
7-21-98 21
Ms. Gay Blair -Hathaway, whose cottage unit is the closest to the proposed building,
addressed the Commission, Though she acknowledged the need for the facility she
expressed the hope that this proposed plan would be denied and that the Assisted Living
building would be relocated or at least moved further away from her cottage. Her
statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. She confirmed she was offered the
opportunity to move, but there are presently no one -bedroom units available. She said she
first became aware this was "going to happen" in April 1997 but she did not see a visual
representation at that time. She said she believes there may be room to locate the building
at the back of the Health Care Center, where it would be just as accessible to the Health
Care Center.
Mr. Blair Hawkins, a delivery truck driver, addressed the Commission. He said he
understands the concerns of the cottage residents. He asked the Commissioners to consider
how they would feel if this 3-story building was going to be built just 40 feet from their
homes.
Ms. Kathleen Orrick, a cottage resident, expressed her opposition to the proposal. Her
statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment B. She said this plan was never
mentioned when she and her husband were being interviewed for potential residency. Her
statement concluded: "We feel ignored and frustrated that this construction is now being
forced on us by a very insensitive and unsympathetic administration that does not seem to
realize how stressful and debilitating the erection of this building will be on us, not to mention
its effect after it is built."
Mr. Ned Morris, Vice Chairman of the Resident Council of WCBR, addressed the
Commission. He is a resident in the "east" cottages. He said he has heard there are 12
residents who object to this proposal, but he is aware of many more who do not object. He
stressed that this proposal is part of the completion of the plan that the Founding Board had.
If the community is not built as originally planned, "it will be a financial disaster."
Mr. Monroe Cooper, a resident of WCBR, described the communications between the
administration and the residents." When management recognized, some months ago, the
amount and intensity of change that will effect residents, a six -member residents' committee
was formed to aid communication. The committee has tried to make residents' comments
and complaints known to the management since March. The residents have either attended
or been represented at all planning meetings. He said the committee will continue to try to
improve communication, "but when push comes to shove you can only do so much."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
(NOTE: Sometime during the public comment, Ms. Washington left the meeting.)
Mr. Nitchmann said the Commission has been in this type of situation before and has asked
that the applicant go back and meet with the residents. He said it sounds as though the
residents are not opposed to the use, but have concerns about aspects of the proposal such
as scale and location. He said he can understand the concerns. He said he doesn't think
enough information has been presented about possible alternatives.
/9/
7-21-98
22
Mr. . Finley ley said 1 K'i agrees with iv r . Itiiw1 tl11a1 n I. � �e sad plot 4. eiiougl 1 iivi 111GILIin-formation it veep
presented to prove that this is the only option.
Mr. 14amptner advised the Commission: "This site is a little different because it follows on
the trails of an approved application plan. So, depending on how much change there is
between the site plan and the application plan, it might be necessary for the applicant to
have to amend the application plan."
Mr. Loewenstein said he doesn't think the kinds of adjustments which might take place would
require an amendment to the application plan. He said his main concerns are:
--The scale, which might reasonably be handled in some other way, and would
address a lot of the residents' concerns.
--The Monticello viewshed. He said: "I think we need to do everything we can to
maximize protection of that. There has been immense complaint in the community about the
existing facility and what it has done to not only Monticello's viewshed but also to the
viewshed of a large portion of this county. I personally would not like to see that repeated,
and i am personally not yet convinced, the way the scale is being presented in what have
before us, that we have, necessarily, the best possible plan before us."
--Conflicting descriptions about the frequency and degree of communication that was
made to the residents. "I'm not satisfied that they had adequate opportunity to provide
input."
Mr. Rieley agreed with the comments of Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Nitchmann. He said he
believes this is a case where there are a lot of ways to adjust square footage, and "this can't
be the only solution." He said the scale of the building, and the proximity to the cottages, is
the first thing that grabs your attention and is the first thing that everyone is concerned about.
He said the technical issue related to the waivers are "rather trivial, but the overall issue of
the site plan is one that needs considerable re -thinking."
Mr. Tice said he agrees with all the previous Commissioner comments.
Mr. Steve Blaine, the applicant's representative, asked if the Commission could go ahead
and take action on the waiver requests. He noted that the ARB review has not yet taken
place and he said "I would not want to see the Commission reconvene and cut off the ARB's
jurisdiction."
Mr. Loewenstein questioned whether the Commission would want to take action on
something that is still somewhat vague and about which there is still disagreement. He said
he was not supportive of Mr. Blaine's request.
This was discussion about a potential deferral and how long it will take for the applicant to
address the Commission's concerns and how that fits in with the time schedule for this
application.
In response to Mr. Cilimberg's question about what the Commission expects to see when the
item is brought back, the following items were identified:
/ 9a
Em
7-21-98
23
--The building should end up no closer to the cottages than was shown on the
application plan which generated the general approval from the Board of Supervisors, and is
more consistent with the original application.
--Evidence of additional meetings between the applicant and the residents.
--An effort be made to address the concerns about scale.
It was determined there are approximately 35 days remaining in the review process. Mr.
Kamptner asked if the applicant was agreeable to a deferral. Mr. Blaine said he believes 2
weeks would be sufficient time for the applicant to respond to the Commission's concerns.
Staff said they would need, at least, an additional 2 weeks to review any changes. Mr.
Blaine said the applicant would agree to a 4 week deferral. Mr. Cilimberg cautioned that
the Commission does not want to be in a position of reviewing another proposal which
residents have not had time to respond to. Mr. Blaine said: "The applicant understands
that." It was decided the item would be deferred to August 25th.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SDP 98-060 be deferred to August
25, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
Resolutions of Appreciation - The Commission unanimously adopted the following
Resolutions of Appreciation for former Commissioners Huckle and Dotson:
WHEREAS, A.Bruce Dotson, did serve as an ex-officio member of the Albemarle
County Planning Commission from January 12, 1994 to December 31, 1997, and
WHEREAS Mr. Dotson served in that capacity with honor, integrity and wisdom and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Planning Commission did rely on Mr. Dotson's
judgement and advice on numerous important matters and wishes to express deep
appreciation to Mr. Dotson for 4 years of valuable service to the citizens of Albemarle
County. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning
Commission does hereby express its appreciation to A. Bruce Dotson for a job well
done.
WHEREAS, Jacquelyn N. Huckle, did serve as a member of the Albemarle County
Planning Commission from January 3, 1990 to December 31, 1997, and WHEREAS
Ms. Huckle served in that capacity with honor, integrity and wisdom and WHEREAS,
the Albemarle County Planning Commission did rely on Ms. Huckle's judgement and
advice on numerous important matters and wishes to express deep appreciation to Ms.
Huckle for 8 years of valuable service to the citizens of Albemarle County. NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission
does hereby express its appreciation to Jacquelyn N. Huckle for a job well done.
Staff will finalize the documents and frame them for presentation to Mr. Dotson and Ms.
Huckle.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m
Q.
r90