HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 06 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 691998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 6, 1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Dennis Rooker, Mr. William Rieley, and Mr. Jack Finley. Other officials present were: Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols,
Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr.
Juandiego Wade, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Jack Kelsey,
Albemarle County Chief of Engineering. Absent: Commissioners Rodney Thomas and William
Nitchmann.
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was established with five (5) of seven (7)
Commission members in attendance.
Chairman Loewenstein introduced Beth Golden, the new Planning Commission Secretary.
The minutes of September 22, 1998 were unanimously approved as amended.
Consent Agenda: SDP 98-118 Pantop's Shopping Center Minor Amendment
Request for parallel parking. No concerns were raised about the consent agenda, and the
Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the consent agenda.
SDP 98-132 Foxcroft Phase III, Preliminary Plat B
Proposal to create 22 lots for single-family detached dwellings, totaling approximately 5 acres of
a 23.135 acre parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 76MI, Parcel 10, is located just south of I-
64 in the Foxcroft Subdivision on Foxvale Lane approximately 700 feet from the intersection
with Southern Parkway. The site is in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is zoned Planned
Unit Development (PUD). Deferred from the September 22, 1998 Planning Commission
Meeting.
Ms Echols presented the staff report and additional information regarding previously stated
concerns. Ms. Echols presented maps of the Foxcroft subdivision Phase III showing plans
"generally agreed to" as alternate locations for pedestrian trails because they will "better meet
the needs of the community."
Regarding concerns raised about the adequacy of existing drainage for Phases I and II, Ms.
Echols stated that the applicants submitted two proposals to deal with the drainage issues, and
that they have been reviewed by the county engineering department. Ms. Echols said that she
and Jack Kelsey met on October 5, 1998 with the neighbors who are experiencing flooding
problems, and one solution has been agreed to: a pipe underneath the cul-de sac that would help
deal with some of the flooding problems. Ms. Echols said they told the property owners the
county would get back with them in two weeks after looking at solutions to the drainage ditch
problem between Lots 56 and 57, and they agreed to that.
Ms. Echols said "we are, as we have been, in favor of the approval of this particular plat. We
think that the drainage issues are being addressed, that the applicant has made a good faith effort
to address them in a way that also helps to solve the residents problems." As her written report
stated, Ms. Echols reiterated that staff has modified the conditions of recommendation based on
comments Commissioners made at the last meeting regarding the pedestrian path system and
sanitary sewer service to Lots 13-17, and said that the rest of the conditions are the same as
presented previously.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant was amenable to putting the drainage ditch in between the two
lots. Ms. Echols stated that the existing ditch has been dug several times, and that they are
working on solutions to the problem of the standing water in the ditch and the safety issues it
raises. She indicated that no solution has been taken back definitively to the property owners.
The applicant's counsel, David Pettit, addressed the Commission and stated that although there
have been problems with the drainage system in Foxcroft Phase I, its construction met both state
and county standards. Mr. Pettit asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that as the applicant
built the system in accordance with the law and is doing everything he can to resolve these
problems, he does not want it to be perceived as a "wrongdoer." He mentioned that a solution
has been identified regarding the flooding problem in front of the Kelleher residence, involving
putting an 18" x 24" pipe under the cul-de-sac to pipe the runoff over to the ditch between Lots
56 and 57. He further stated that they have committed to Mrs. Kelleher in writing to complete
that within 30 days, and said that if that doesn't solve the problem, they will keep working on it
until a solution is found. Regarding the remaining drainage issue of the ditch between Lots 56
and 57, Mr. Pettit indicated that they do not know the source of the standing water there, and
hence do not have a solution yet. He stated that they have met with county engineering, VDOT,
and the homeowners, and that work is underway to try to identify a solution. Mr. Pettit said that
they have committed to homeowners within two weeks to be back with them after the
investigation into the problem has been completed.
He further stated that "we think it's a separate issue from the preliminary plat approval for Phase
III." Mr. Pettit emphasized that the design standard for the pedestrian pathways is 4" of stone
and 1 '/2" inches of asphalt; he said the failures mentioned were in an area where the path was
constructed over utility lines, and perhaps the sub -base was not adequately compacted: "we'll
fix that problem and we'll work with Ms. Echols to finalize the..... pedestrian pathway system,"
and add a notation on the plat regarding the grinder pumps and four sewer laterals.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Nat Perkins, an engineer employed by the applicant, if the 18" x 24"
elliptical section would add additional water into the ditch between Lots 56 and 57. Mr. Perkins
stated that the water will just be diverted across the cul-de sac, and would not mean any
additional water would be put the ditch. Mr. Rieley asked what the gradient of the ditch is, and
Mr. Perkins confirmed it was 1 %.
Mr. Brian Blackwell, a Foxcroft homeowner (Lot 56) addressed the Commission and presented
pictures which showed the standing water in the ditch and the steepness of the ditch. He
emphasized that the water is still there and that it is still a problem. He indicated that the
standing water presented a drowning hazard to his 15-month-old child. Mr. Blackwell informed
the Commission that the drainage system is not working properly in Foxcroft Phase I, and has
not been properly installed in Foxcroft Phase 11 at this point, but stated they do have the
necessary equipment to rectify the situation. He stated that as homeowners, they have some
reservations about proceeding with Foxcroft Phase III when the resolutions have not been made
in Foxcroft Phase I and II.
``'01- Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Blackwell if he had received anything in writing from the owners
regarding actions they have proposed. Mr. Blackwell said he received a copy of what they plan
to do with the pipe that runs under the cul-de-sac, but felt that the drain ditch issue had been
ignored a the October 5, 1998 meeting. He emphasized that regardless of Foxcroft's claim that
there may be a leak from a water system or a spring present, the water should not be standing and
pooling.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kelsey if the water source turns out to be a spring and expensive deep
trenching is required, would the erosion control bond give the county adequate leverage to deal
with this particular open drain and the primary issue of flooding in the area. Mr. Kelsey said that
he feels the county has leverage, and explained to the Commission the different tactics for
dealing with the drainage issue depending on what the water source is. Mr. Rieley said his
concern is that if there is a disagreement between the engineering department and the developer
(the applicant in this case) as to the best way to solve this issue, that "we have leverage other
than the Phase III development to bring to bear on this." Mr. Kelsey responded that he feels
comfortable that the county does, and will "make sure this reaches a resolution."
Ms. Washington asked Mr. Kelsey if he or anyone on his staff would monitor this situation in the
coming months. Mr. Kelsey stated they are actively working with Mr. Perkins to try to find a
solution.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Kelsey to confirm that this water could not be piped instead of cutting a
slope and ditch. Mr. Kelsey stated that although piping was one of the solutions talked about,
because of the small amount of gradient available this was probably not feasible without adding
a parallel drainage system. Mr. Kelsey stated that adding this system would raise concerns
because it would require removal of hardwood trees, and a parallel pipe would not be able to be
placed at sufficient depth. He told the Commission that they are considering different solutions,
but still have not come up with anything definitive yet.
Mr. Rooker commented on the depth of the ditch, and Mr. Kelsey stated it is probably as deep as
5'-6' with a 2/1 slope, and could be reworked to meet the standard but wouldn't necessarily
please adjacent property owners or appease safety concerns.
Mr. Rooker stated "it looks to me like perhaps there are some unusual characteristics to the land
out there, but I'm just surprised we end up in a situation where we have a drainage system put
together this way in the first place...when I look at that ditch, it looks to me to be a hazard." He
went on to say that he hopes engineering can work something out that will move the water and
provide for a safer drainage system, and said that in looking at the interaction of the Phase I
drainage system with Phase III that is before the Commission for vote, that "perhaps we've done
all can do."
Mr. Rieley agreed, and said that at this point county engineering must be relied on to work out a
solution with the applicant. Mr. Rieley expressed concern that the side slopes on this swell,
whatever its final configuration, do not exceed 3 to 1, which is the steepest moldable slope
because "these are people's yards, and they should be able to mow them and maintain them
safely."
Mr. Rooker commented that the slope configuration appears to be workable within the confines
of this particular location. He asked Deputy County Attorney Greg Kamptner if it is appropriate
to attach a condition to this approval requiring the applicant to implement the solutions required
by the county to resolve the existing drainage problems in Phase 1. Mr. Kamptner reported that
no condition should be attached to the Phase III proposal unless there was a direct connection to
the previous phases because Phases 1 and II are already completed.
With that in mind, Mr. Reiley then made a request to Mr. Kelsey for county engineering to look
at moldable slopes for these lots during its review.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved for approval of SDP 98-132 with the revised conditions set
forward by staff. Ms. Washington seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------------
ZMA-98-20 Pantops Development
Petition for approval of an Application Plan for general development of 49.34 acres, zoned PD-
MC. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcels 20A, 73, 73A, 76 and 75, is located on the
south side of US Route 250 East and west of State Farm Boulevard. Property is in Neighborhood
3 of the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan and recommended for regional service usage
within the Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from the September 29, 1998 meeting.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report for ZN A-98-20 petition to rezone 49 1/2 acres, 47 of which
are zoned Planned Development - Mixed Commercial, and 2 1/2 are zoned HC-Highway
Commercial. He explained that the current request is not for change in zoning or change in uses,
but there is a requirement in the ordinance that before any additional development can occur the
applicant must obtain approval of an application plan. He stated that because there is no change
for request in uses, staff review of this petition was limited to matters of physical development of
the property as addressed by an application plan, and reviewed in the context of a site plan.
Mr. Keeler reported that the staff s main focus of review was on public road improvements,
including construction of a third lane eastbound on 250 along with the sidewalk from the western
property line to the existing Rolkin Court. From that point, he stated, there would be a third lane
with no sidewalk from Rolkin Court to State Farm Boulevard. The new road, "Hansen Road,"
would be restricted to right turn in and right turn out only, as the location is not good to
accommodate left turns off of 250 or left turns out of the property onto 250." He explained that
the westbound turn lane into Rolkin would be extended to a length of 400 feet with a 150-foot
taper and turn lane; signalization would be provided by the applicant on Rolkin and 250. Rolkin
would be improved to a multi -lane facility, and there would be a break in the median for access
into the Virginia Oil Company; however, based on the traffic volume in the area, there would be
an additional access to 250 to serve Virginia Oil and the proposed DMV site. The
improvements to Rolkin would occasion a reconstruction and improvement to the entrance to the
Montessori School on the north side of Route 250.
The developer will participate in a traffic signal at State Farm Blvd. and Route 250, with agreed
upon percentages of traffic responsibility amending the existing three -party agreement which
binds Peter Jefferson Place to participation in that signal. A traffic signal at State Farm Blvd.
and Hickman would be installed by the applicant when determined to be warranted by VDOT.
Mr. Keeler said that the improvements to the Montessori entrance would require their agreement
to this proposal; there would be a change in access to Guaranty Bank, which would require their
agreement, and Virginia Oil would participate by virtue of dedication of right-of-way for
construction of the additional third lane.
Mr. Keeler stated that these improvements combined with the improvements agreed to by Peter
Jefferson Place, VDOT and the County would result in a limitation of 7 points of access to Route
250 East from the western property line of this development to the I-64 ramp, including Rolkin
Drive and State Farm Blvd; signalization would be provided at all warranted points of Route 250
and an additional eastbound lane would be created from the western property line of the Pantops
Development to the Westbound Ramp at 1-64, approximately 5900 feet.
He further reported that the applicant is requesting four (4) waivers in modifications of county
regulations that are provided for on the Planned Development District, including restriction on
development on critical slopes, storm water detention requirements, internal usage of private
roads, and usage of Planned Development -Shopping parking standards for the Kroger Shopping
Center. Mr. Keeler explained that there are two sites proposed for immediate development: the
Kroger center and the DMV site. The applicant has no specific uses for the remainder of the
property, and the uses illustrated for purposes of traffic generation are those that would likely
occur. The applicant has agreed to proffer a maximum traffic generation from the development.
Mr. Keeler summarized that as no zoning change has been requested, the staff restricted its
review of the petition to the physical aspects of development; the applicant has proffered all
public road improvements as recommended by VDOT as well as proffering traffic generation
limits to ensure adequacy of these improvements; efforts have been made to relate the physical
development of this property to the surrounding context, and to an extent, satisfaction of these
criteria as outlined in Section 8.5.4 has been framed by circumstances of existing development
surrounding the site. He explained to the Commission several iterations of the road plans that
had been considered.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that initially sidewalks would be constructed along all of the
proposed urban cross-section roads, with plans to construct off -road walkways along the loop
road behind the shopping center as development occurs. He stated that most of the traffic now
using the loop road would be apartment traffic, not shoppers. Mr. Keeler mentioned another
long-standing VDOT concern about the proximity of the intersection of Hickman and 250, and
said that early plans showing this road receiving a lot of traffic has been revised now to include a
parallel road to State Farm Blvd.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a cul-de-sac on Rolkin Road, or if the road goes all the way to
250. Mr. Keeler explained that the proposed improvement plan would add several lanes to
Rolkin Court and remove the existing cul-de-sac, and reported that the engineering department
was still looking at the alignment of this intersection and the possibility that there may be a
signal requirement here, which will be addressed in the review of the road plans.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Keeler to point out the high point on the existing hill on the site. Mr.
Keeler indicated that the new elevation (after grading) of this point would be 545'. Mr. Rieley
then asked Mr. Keeler to show the approximate location of the edge of the existing forest, which
Mr. Keeler did. Mr. Keeler explained that although the area on site for the road and drainage
pipe would not require significant tree removal, county engineering has indicated that trees
would probably need to be removed in the basin area of the site.
I%WW Mr. Rooker asked if there is any way to retain any trees between the building and Rolkin Road,
and Mr. Keeler responded that at least initially the area could remain wooded. Mr. Keeler said
the planning staff recommends that the applicant's request for modifications of critical slopes
only be granted for the improvements shown on the current plan, thus allowing the Commission
to review future plans on the other properties for issues of tree removal and critical slopes.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any open space on the plan, and Mr. Keeler responded "No ... there is
no open space requirement for PD-MC or the PD-SC zones. The planned commercial zones
have no open space requirements."
Mr. Finley asked who pays for the extension from Rolkin Road to I-64; Mr. Keeler responded
that this applicant pays for the third lane from the western property line to State Farm Boulevard,
and from State Farm Blvd. on is the obligation of Peter Jefferson Place. Mr. Finely then asked
how much the traffic generation proffered is "over and above" what is from the development
already proposed. Mr. Keeler reported that shopping center, the four frontage outlots, and the
DMV, and the neighboring apartments generate a maximum of 18,500 trips per day. He stated
that Peter Jefferson Place generates 28,500 for a total combined traffic count of approximately
47,000 trips per day onto 250. Mr. Keeler emphasized that the traffic figures are actually
volumes that are crossing a particular point, and "some of the traffic is already on the road .... I try
to insert that caution, but there will be more traffic onto 250 after this development and
particularly Peter Jefferson place when fully developed."
Mr. Rooker: "When the developer tenders a traffic generation limit, how is that enforced?"
Mr. Keeler: "We use the ITE Code as development proposals come in; basically, it gives the
developer a choice ... we feel like the volumes here, the total volume certainly will be adequate."
Mr. Rieley asked whether cross -sections had been done on the site for the Monticello viewshed.
Mr. Keeler stated staff policy has been to recommend strongly to applicants that they meet with
Monticello, and stated that this applicant has done so. He said that the staff does not do
viewshed cross -sections from Monticello because "we don't have a historic ordinance at this
time, and I'm unsure that we have any real authority elsewhere in our zoning ordinance to
actually [enforce it]." Mr. Keeler reported that staff has strongly recommended to this applicant,
to Kroger and to DMV that they meet with Monticello, and believes that all three have.
Mr. Rooker asked for the total area of the critical slopes that would be disturbed, and Mr. Keeler
stated that information was not highlighted on this plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that critical slope waivers, storm water detention waivers, and private road
exceptions are usually part of site plans, not ZMA. Mr. Keeler responded that in the case of a
planned development shopping center, where the application plan is so detailed, it is appropriate
to address those issues at the time of the zoning, instead of bringing the site plan back later on for
waivers.
"++ Mr. Keeler summarized that staff recommends that the Planning Commission report the
following findings to the Board of Supervisors:
- the application plan favorably reflects criteria 8.54(a) and 8.54(b) of the Planned Development
generally as well as the standards of the comprehensive plan.
- as to section 8.54(c), in addition to notes on the proffered Application Plan and other proffers, a
contractual agreement executed by the applicant, Virginia Oil Company, Montessori School,
VDOT and the County would be appropriate to ensure execution of the plan. Participation of
Guaranty Bank in such contractual agreement is not required for execution of the plan but is
viewed as beneficial to the bank. Participation of Carriage Hill Apartments is not required as
additional access was a requirement of approval of that development. (Mr. Keeler stated that he
has letters from Guaranty Bank and Virginia Oil Company concurring with the plan. He said
that although he has nothing in writing, Montessori recognizes it would be in their benefit to
have a signal there.)
- Regarding modifications: the critical slopes waiver be granted only to the extent for
improvements on the plan that are shown at this time; endorsement of the engineering
department's action on the relief from stormwater detention requirements subject to satisfaction
of engineering's concerns as to adequacy of water quality measures and downstream channels;
approval of private roadways internal to the development; and PD-SC parking standards be
allowed for usage for the shopping center.
Mr. Rieley: "Is the issue of the private roads solely one of ownership and domain? As I
understand it they would be built to the same standards and geometry as if they were public
roads?"
Mr. Keeler: "Yes. They will be constructed to VDOT rolling terrain standards.... the one
difference is you can have ornamental plantings and the like within what would be the right of
way. And there's no required setback from an internal private road in a commercial
development." He further informed the Commission that if the applicant maintains the setbacks
as in public roads and doesn't encroach into the right-of-way, at some future date they could
reapproach the county and ask that the roads be taken into the state system.
Mr. Finley asked if there is some required buffering in the plan. Mr. Keeler reported that this
plan meets the minimum ordinance standards of no clearing or construction within 20 feet of the
property line. Mr. Finley asked if there would be any mixed residential within the development,
and Mr. Keeler responded no, but said they tried to physically incorporate the existing residences
by adding road and sidewalks.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Keeler to explain the sidewalk configuration. He explained that Hansen
Road, Rolkin Road and the new road "Road 'C"' would be urban section, and would all have
concrete sidewalks; the loop behind the shopping center would be a rural section, and behind the
ditch line would be an asphalt pathway to be installed as development occurred along that road.
Mr. Finley asked if bicycles could use the asphalt pathway, and Mr. Keeler replied that the 6-foot
asphalt pathways would be adequate, but stated "we really didn't focus on bikeways in this area
because there are no bikeways out anywhere in Neighborhood 3 at this time. We've been trying
to focus more on sidewalks." He added that there would also be sidewalks along 250.
En
Mr. Rooker commented that the residences of Carriage Hill, at the overlook, and eventually Peter
Jefferson Place would generate a fair amount of bicycle traffic if there is commercial property
for that traffic to get to. Mr. Keeler responded that it may appropriate for staff to take a look at
opportunities for developers to provide bikeways, and the subsequent obligations that would fall
to the county to connect those pathways. He said that internal to this development, bikeways
could be required, and at the time of the site plan the Commission could require bikeways in
Peter Jefferson Place because "you have that authority anyway."
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that given the traffic in the area, South Pantops Drive is not a safe
place for pedestrians or bicyclists, but it is a natural pedestrian area. "We need to make certain
that we've got sidewalk connections going down State Farm and down the hill South Pantops
Drive to the shopping center down there."
Mr. Cilimberg stated that "these are just a few more of the missing links of old road in
urbanizing area that were not designed with sidewalks and bike lanes which are going to be a
public responsibility. They'll be offsite from this project to try to retrofit for those purposes.
We're catching those in an incremental fashion. I think that most every one of our urban
collectors we're beginning to look at for... sidewalk segments to complete networks as well as
striking for bikes."
Mr. Keeler stated that there is a four -foot sidewalk planned for the proposed apartment
improvements on South Pantops. Mr. Keeler distributed some photographs of the site area.
Mr. Rooker asked at what point more detail could be provided to the Commission about
conditions proffered with regard to leaving some kind of tree buffer on this property. He also
asked when additional information regarding the extent of critical slope disturbance could be
provided, as the plan contains a request for waivers of this requirement.
Mr. Glenn Brooks of the county engineering department addressed the Commission, and
reported that approximately 70 to 80% of the two main critical slope areas on either side of the
rear property line on the plan, including 7 acres on the far right and 2.7 acres on the far left,
would be disturbed. He added that the Kroger development would disturb very little of it
because it is up near the peak of the area; the loop road that goes around the bottom of the
Kroger will disturb a few acres on the right lower side.
Mr. Finley asked if the request for waiver of the storm water detention requirements was due to
the proximity of the site to the river, and asked when county engineering could administratively
approve a waiver. Mr. Brooks responded that under the recently adopted ordinance, anywhere in
the county can be waived at the discretion of the engineering department. He added that
traditionally it's only been done adjacent to large watercourses or the river and this is one of
those areas.
Mr. Finley referenced Mr. Brooks' memo regarding the storm scepter, and Mr. Brooks explained
that engineering had agreed to use the storm scepter devices (manhole filtration system) on the
apartments site plan, and stated that it was viewed as an option for this plan also, but the Water
Resources Manager David Hirschmann has been doing some research and found out that the
byproduct of these manholes, the waste pumped out on a yearly basis, doesn't have a place in the
county where it's accepted yet. "We've been ... talking to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
about taking it to their treatment plant, and they weren't very comfortable with that." Mr. Brooks
said that research from Maryland and Northern Virginia indicates the waste from the manholes is
heavy in metals and petroleum products.
' Mr. Rooker asked if county engineering had considered if there were any negative ramifications
from the disturbing of this much critical slope in the plan area. Mr. Brooks said, "It's basically
our requirements that are causing most of the disturbance for a stormwater management facility,
so it's sort of a trade-off."
Mr. Steve Melton, who represents the Pantops Development, addressed the Commission and
stated that this has been "a very complicated and difficult plan at times to work with, and we've
come a long way .... to get where we are tonight." Mr. Melton added that the aerial photographs
presented earlier do not show the current activity with the Carriage Hill apartments, and also do
not show the Kroger in its current planned position.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Melton if he knew what percentage of the treed area behind the Kroger is
going to be cleared. Mr. Melton responded "No," and added that Carriage Hill has taken a good
number of those trees out.
Mr. Rieley asked "Have you as a part of your analysis cut a cross-section from Monticello to this
site?" Mr. Melton replied that he met with Mr. Beiswanger at Monticello with a master site plan
and DMV plan, but did not have a cross-section at that meeting. He said that he showed Mr.
Langer the design and color schemes planned for the DMV building, but he wasn't sure what
Kroger officials had talked about in terms of the viewshed for Monticello.
Mr. Rieley referenced the land use standards for designated development areas which say that
"the development should be concentrated to the greatest extent possible to protect environmental
features and specifically mention critical slopes, scenic vistas and historic sites and adverse
visual impacts associated with linear strip development." He then asked Mr. Melton "How
would you distinguish this proposal, particularly the Kroger shopping center, with a substantial
amount of parking in front of it, from strip development?"
Mr. Melton: "Well, I'd like to place a lot of emphasis on what we worked with the county. I
don't look at this as a strip store type of situation, and I think Kroger's approach is in a very good
manner as far as their building design. We're using a lower parking impact versus the PD-MC
shopping center guidelines, which I believe cuts about 100 parking spaces off of that area." Mr.
Melton added "With what the developers have to go through as far as the architectural review,
the trees, and various things like that, I see it fitting very nicely in that site."
There were no further questions, and Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing, and brought the
matter back before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley began the discussion by commending the applicant and the staff, particularly Ron
Keeler, for helping to "knit together a myriad of diverse road and ownership patterns. It's clearly
a complex puzzle, and you've clearly worked hard at it." Mr. Rieley said he had a few small
concerns regarding the bike path width, and using opportunity for the private roads to develop a
better cross-section with tree lawns and sidewalks.
But he said his larger concern was that "this is an enormously visible site, and it's visible from
one of the most important historic resources and economic resources that we have in the county."
Mr. Rieley stated that he thinks this is the highest piece of land between Carter's Mountain and
Ashcroft, and yet this proposal requires that the top of it be leveled. He went on to say that there
will be a direct line of site from Monticello to the back and rooftop of Kroger and a sea of
parking. Mr. Rieley referenced the Principles for Land Use in designated development areas,
reading "wooded areas visible from Monticello, especially in Neighborhoods 3 and 4 which
protect Monticello's setting and viewshed, should be protected." Mr. Riley said "this will not do
that, and I think we should insist on development plans that adhere to our own guidelines." He
added, "I can't find a distinction between this kind of proposal... with conventional strip
development."
While acknowledging the difficulty of the site plan, Mr. Rieley said "My feeling is this is the
wrong plan in this place, and it's going to do an awful lot more damage to the community than
the grocery store in that site is going to benefit."
Mr. Finely asked Mr. Rieley "what specifically needs to be done?"
Mr. Rieley responded that this would be a good site for a development proposal that did not
require removing that hilltop of trees. "This is one of the few sites that we've got in the
Monticello viewshed that is zoned the way that it is that has a forest .... and so I think there are
alternate schemes that could get probably the same amount of square footage in without
removing that important visual buffer .... that could address the street in a more direct way, hide
the parking rather than display it in front of the building. I'm convinced there are many design
alternatives to this that would generate just as much commercial square footage on the property."
Ms. Washington said that "this is what the Board of Supervisors has been looking for ... some kind
" of plan that has been put together over a period of time that brings a variety of use to the
community." Ms. Washington indicated she wants to support the plan and let it move on to the
Board of Supervisors. She commented that the planning staff, especially Mr. Keeler, and the
developers have coordinated well with the neighboring sites so that financially it is not a burden
on everyone. Ms. Washington said "this is in my district and I do think that this is something
that is needed in this area. I think as this plan goes along, the things that you are concerned
about will be addressed. I realize Monticello has a lot of historical value, but I do think all of the
developers will be conscious of the historical value."
En
Ms. Washington then made a motion that the Commission support this action.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if three separate actions were needed given the staff modifications, and
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the entire application plan could be done in one motion, because all
listed items were part of one application package.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion, and asked Mr. Rieley to clarify his concerns. Mr. Rieley stated:
protecting the Monticello viewshed and moving away from this conventional strip development.
Mr. Rieley added "I think there's plenty of room on this land and with this general concept to do
that .... I think that an adjustment to this plan could make it acceptable, and I think there are some
very good things about it, but I do think that, particularly since the grocery store is the
centerpiece .... I don't feel that I can support this package as it's configured now. I do think it can
be adjusted so that it is acceptable."
Mr. Finley: "With the grocery store?"
Mr. Rieley: "Sure, I think a grocery store could fit on this site and respect the viewshed."
Mr. Rooker: "To what extent is this site subject to Architectural Review Board control? Does
their control extend the entire depth of this property?"
Mr. Keeler: "Yes ... now the ARB's review is for the visibility from 250, not from Monticello."
Mr. Rooker asked if some of the aesthetic problems that would surface in respect to Monticello
would be problems dealt with by the ARB.
Mr. Keeler: "Generally, the ARB requires additional larger landscaping than the regular
landscaping provisions; they're very careful about lighting, color of buildings and that sort of
thing."
Mr. Rooker asked what the ARB is typically doing about parking lots, and Mr. Keeler pointed
out that the buildings themselves would provide some screening, and the different planned uses
for the four outlots would help break up the asphalt view of the parking area. "At the same time,
you'd have four buildings lining 250 which could also be argued as being a strip kind of
development."
Addressing Mr. Rooker's concern about the ARB's involvement with parking, Mr. Cilimberg
stated that the ARB's role will be limited by the zoning that's approved, but within each site that
exists, they have total discretion over how to arrange the layout of buildings and parking as long
as it is not affecting any health safety consideration of the ordinance such as site distance, etc.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Rieley if the ARB's involvement ameliorated any of his concern.
Mr. Rieley replied that no, because if the Commission approves the application than "we are
agreeing to the leveling of this hilltop and the forest, and I think that's the critical move that we
don't want to make."
Addressing Mr. Rooker's question about the proposed hotel location, Mr. Keeler stated that it is
currently proposed for the southwest corner of the property, but it could move around so long as
traffic generation on the internal roads doesn't change significantly.
Mr. Rooker stated he agreed with Mr. Rieley. "It looks to me like we have done a very good job
of dealing with the traffic considerations and some of the infrastructure considerations, but it
seems to me that in this highly visible site we could do a much better job of layout and design
generally and try to come up with a plan that would preserve the hilltop and preserve some of the
trees on this site. And I think as it's presently designed, those trees are pretty much going to go.
In light of the clear language of the land use plan, it seems to me that's a factor we've got to give
some weight to."
Mr. Loewenstein said "I would agree with that assessment and those reasons. I think that there
are certainly ways to incorporate these uses on this site without the need for disturbance of the
type we're aware would be necessary in order to bring the plan before us to fruition, and ....I
think the land use plan does need to be adhered to."
Mr. Finley asked if the motion does not pass if it would be up to the applicant to request an
additional deferral so that he might take the information from this meeting to try and alter the
plan.
Mr. Loewenstein responded that any motion taken would preempt any deferral for the
Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg added that as this item is scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors in two
weeks, whatever recommendation goes forward if the applicant wants to respond to it in some
way, they can request deferral with the board in order to do that. "It's very doubtful there would
be a redevelopment of the plan, and if it were, the board would probably ask that [the
Commission] see it before they act on it."
Mr. Finley commented that the road plan and third road plan are very good, and felt the
Architectural Review Board's authority would address the parking and buffering concerns.
Mr. Loewenstein said "I'm personally not certain that that takes care of the protection of that
hillside and some of those trees."
Mr. Rooker added: "I am somewhat moved by the limited ability of the ARB to deal with
anything other than each particular site for development as it comes before them. This doesn't
really provide them with any flexibility in terms of dealing with the problems that we see with
the plan. It is, in a lot of ways a good plan, but I think... it's a plan that could be massaged
somewhat to take some of these other problems into consideration other than the transportation
plans which have been dealt with very well in this plan."
There was no further Commission discussion.
MOTION: The motion made earlier by Ms. Washington and seconded by Mr. Finley
recommending the Planning Commission approve the findings to the Board of Supervisors on
ZMA 98-20 as outlined in the staff report was revisited.
In a 2-3 vote, with Ms. Washington and Mr. Finley voting for approval, and Mr. Loewenstein,
Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Rieley voting against approval, the Commission denied approval of ZMA
98-20. The item will go before the Board of Supervisors on October 21, 1998.
Answering a question from Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Kamptner reported that the Commission could let
the decision stand or recommend approval with modifications and alternate recommendations to
the application plan.
Mr. Loewenstein stated he would accept such a motion, and Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Rieley to
articulate a motion that would take those concerns into consideration.
Mr. Rieley said he felt the discussion in the minutes of this meeting would be enough guidance,
as the Board of Supervisors will see them before their meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg added that if the Commissioners had any recommendations for modifications,
''wt they could be put into a motion for the record.
Mr. Loewenstein asked fellow Commissioners if they wanted to suggest alternatives to the
language set forth in the four modification requests.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested dropping the critical slopes waiver or stating that any type of
disturbance in the area on the site plan would have to come before the Commission for review.
Mr. Rieley responded that he is uncomfortable with trying to craft language that spells out
exactly how the plan needs to be modified. " I think we've expressed pretty clearly the concerns
with it, and I think the application plan.....is fundamentally flawed."
Mr. Loewenstein suggested that the record of this discussion stand for itself so that the board will
get a sense of where the Commission's thoughts lie. Mr. Rooker agreed.
------------------------------------------
SP 98-050 Division of Motor Vehicles
Petition to establish a DMV facility of approximately 9,140 square feet with one drive -through
window on 2.7 acres zoned PD-MC, Planned Development — Mixed Commercial and EC,
Entrance Corridor. Property, described as a portion of Tax map 78, parcel 73, is located on the
southern side of Route 250 East between the existing Virginia Oil and the Guaranty Bank. The
site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended for Office/Regional
Service in Neighborhood 3. Deferred from the September 29, 1998 meeting.
Before Commission discussion ensued, Mr. Cilimberg noted that this item is a special use permit
for a facility that is within the application plan the Commission failed to approve, and stated that
"you're acting on something that actually can't move forward unless [the Board of Supervisors]
they approve what you just didn't approve."
Mr. Eric Morrisette presented the staff report, first reiterating that any approval of this item
would be pending approval of the application plan. Mr. Morrisette reported that a site plan from
the DMV is for an office building approximately 9,100 square feet, and the current proposal is
strictly for the Special Use permit for the drivethrough.
He reported that the planned drive -through is located to the rear of the property with a stacking
lane that would be visible from the entrance corridor, but said the window itself is entirely in the
rear, and would not be visible from the entrance corridor. Mr. Morrisette said the staff is
currently reviewing the proposal, and now is ready to recommend administrative approval
pending the Board of Supervisors approval of both the special use permit and application plan.
Mr. Morrisette said the proposal has been presented to the Architectural Review Board, and there
have not been any major identified issues with the project.
Mr. Morrisette confirmed that this facility is intended to replace the Westfield Road facility.
Mr. Rooker asked if a condition could be added to state `pending approval of revised application
plan.' Mr. Cilimberg stated that was an assumed thing, and didn't really need to be a condition.
Addressing Mr. Rieley's question, Mr. Cilimberg further stated that the item could not be
"broken out" for a separate approval process, unless the parcel itself was taken out for separate
rezoning.
No questions were addressed to the applicant, Steve Melton. Public comment was invited. None
was given, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Washington moved, and Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-50 be approved with conditions as
recommended by staff: drive through windows will be limited to one; ARB needs to issue a
Certificate of Appropriateness; stacking lane must be widened to 12ft; and appropriate signage
must be placed at the entry to the stacking lane.
The motion passed unanimously.
Implied in the action will be pending approval of an application plan for the site.
A brief recess was called.
The meeting was reconvened for the Public Hearing.
ZMA 98-21 William M. Patterson (Sign #49)
Request for rezoning of 3.49 acres from rural areas (RA) to residential (R-1). The parcel, Tax
Map 55 Parcel 104-A is located approximately '/z mile west of the 240/250 intersection on Route
250 West. The site is predominantly in the Crozet Development Area and is designated
residential. The remainder of the site is located in Rural Area 3.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, and stated that the applicant is requesting the amendment to
accommodate their partially disabled son. He reported the site is surrounded by mixed uses, and
is recommended for higher density than currently exists.
Mr. Rieley asked what the gross density would be under R-1. Mr. Wade responded one unit per
acre. Mr. Rooker asked if the Patterson's home is presently on the site. Mr. Wade stated that the
son lives in a multi -level home on an adjacent parcel, and the Pattersons plan to sell that and
build an one -level home on their parcel.
The applicant, Theresa Patterson, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any intention to have more than two dwellings on the property.
Ms. Patterson indicated there was not. Mr. Rooker asked if she would be willing to tender a
proffer of a condition that there will only be two dwellings on the property, as the zoning would
allow for three dwellings. Ms. Patterson agreed.
Ms. Washington asked Mr. Rooker asked why he wanted the applicant to give up the right to add
an additional dwelling. Mr. Rooker responded that the reason given for the current rezoning
request is for one additional house, and a property with three dwellings would be a different
consideration. "What I am interested in is accommodating their specific request. If at a later
time... it was appropriate to remove that condition, they certainly could come back if they plan to
build a third house on that property and ask to remove that condition."
on
Mr. Finley asked if the site is in the Crozet Development Area. Mr. Wade responded that site is
on the border, and staff considers it to be in the development area. Ms. Patterson said they do
have public water, but not sewer.
Ms. Washington asked if the applicant wanted to come back, would the process be as simple as
resubmitting an application to retract the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg answered that it would be a
rezoning.
Mr. Rooker stated his concern that the development area would be extended without a thorough
study. Mr. Loewenstein agreed, and said it would be important to consider the development area
as a whole if further expansion was planned.
Ms. Patterson confirmed that there would be a total of two residences on site, and said she is
willing to proffer that as a condition of approval.
Mr. Rieley asked if both buildings would be served by one driveway; Ms. Patterson said the
driveway currently in place would serve both structures.
Public comment was invited. Mr. Bruce Kirtley, a neighbor of the Pattersons who owns the store
adjacent to their property, spoke in favor of the project, and indicated that the request is
supported by other neighbors in the community.
No additional comments were offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that ZMA 98-21 be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval with the proffer added. The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------------
SP 98-48 Thomas F. Starke Restaurant (Sign #71)
Request for a special use permit to allow for the conversion of a video store to a restaurant as a
commercial use in an industrial zone in accordance with Section 27.2.2.14 of the zoning
ordinance. The property, described as TMP 56 A-3-9B is located in the White Hall Magisterial
District near Route 240 across the street from the main entrance to Con -Agra. The property is
zoned LI Light Industrial. The Land Use Plan shows this property as Rural Areas in the
Commmunity of Crozet.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report and referenced a modified sketch plan showing a
combination of the properties the Starkes own in the area to put the request in context.
She reported that the video store is no longer in the proposed restaurant site; it has moved next
door to a vacant building next door. The proposal requires a special use permit because the
property is zoned LI, and the proposed use is different than the former use as a video store.
Ms. Echols stated that staff believes the advantages of this as a redevelopment proposal outweigh
the disadvantages of the wording in the Comprehensive Plan and Crozet Community Study that
don't "on their face support these types of uses at this location." The Comprehensive Plan
designates the area as rural, and the Crozet Community Study suggests commercial areas should
be located downtown.
cm
Ms. Echols indicated that there will need to be changes to the site as indicated by comments in
the staff report from zoning, engineering, fire & rescue and the building inspector. But she
stated that none of these changes are significant in terms of recommending this approval.
Ms. Echols read the conditions as set forth in the staff report; she noted that the fire & rescue
requirement for the underground storage tanks is something that could be handled separately and
doesn't need to be a condition of the special use permit because the fire & rescue division has the
ability to take care of those things under different state regulations and they are working with the
Starkes on that issue.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if those requirements need to be met before final Board of Supervisors
approval. Ms. Echols explained that that was not necessarily the case, but the fire & rescue
division is pursuing that separately through state regulations.
Public comment was invited. Mr. Thomas Starke, applicant, addressed the Commission, and
stated that he intends to operate a "Mom and Pop" type restaurant on site.
No additional comments were made, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 98-48 be approved with the
conditions recommended by the staff. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-22 Wilton Country Homes (Sign #51, 53)
Proposal to amend the existing proffers to ZMA 94-07 to permit increase by one, the number of
permitted lots between Wilton Farms Drive and Route 20. Property, described as Tax Map 78B
Parcels 17A and 17B, consists of approximately 0.466 acres and is located on the east side of
Route 20, Stony Point Road at the entrance to Wilton Farms in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The site is zoned R-10, Residential and is recommended for Urban Density Residential in
Neighborhood 3.
Mr. William Fritz presented Commissioners with the correct approved landscape plan for the
property as reviewed by staff.
He explained that the property had a rezoning previously approved which limited the number of
residential units to four (4); the applicant is now proposing creation of one (1) additional one.
The plat has been reviewed by staff and meets all requirements for water, sewer, drainage, etc.
Mr. Fritz said staff recommends approval, and can find no reason why one additional unit
couldn't be added, as this would not change the character of the area in any way. The proffer
will need to be changed before the plan goes to the Board of Supervisors to reference the correct
landscape plan.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Fritz to describe the difference in the plan just submitted versus what
had been previously distributed. Mr. Fritz said the new plan shows the updated landscaping
design which includes larger trees to provide a much more efficient screen than the original plan.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was a physical plan that accompanied the four house scheme previously
approved. Mr. Fritz responded that there was simply a plan that created the four existing lots and
the landscape plan was part of that. He stated that the current proposal is just one additional
unit.
Mr. Rooker asked how the size of the new lot compares to other lots. Mr. Fritz said that it is
comparable to the others. He added that there is a minor relocation of Wilton Farms Drive that is
occuring with the improvements to Fontana which helps reduce the area setbacks. Mr. Fritz said
essentially all five lots will be the same size. Addressing Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Fritz stated
that Garnett Farm Drive is the primary road that is being changed as part of the Fontana
development.
Public comment was invited. Tom Crystal, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked if the relative house configuration submitted was part of the previous
application. Mr. Fritz stated that the cross-section was submitted with the 1989 application to
show what the berm would look like.
No additional comments were made, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley asked staff in the context of the entire Wilton Farms complex if there is any plan for
extension of sidewalks. Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff has been working with the Capital
Improvements Program, and one sidewalk project identified is Route 20 from 250 east to the
Elks Drive intersection and into Wilton. He said the project is estimated at over $200,000, and
there isn't "anywhere near that kind of money in the CIP right now." Mr. Cilimberg said it's
possible that it could become part of the primary road project, but there is no primary road
improvement for Route 20 North scheduled. He added that the sidewalk. issue is something that
will be raised the Commission and the Board of Supervisors when the CIP comes forward.
Mr. Loewenstein commented on the high traffic volumes in the area, and stated that with
additional residential development underway, it should be a top priority for sidewalk
construction. He stated that he sees constant pedestrian traffic in this area, which often involves
children. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the priority is there for the need, but the money is not.
Mr. Rooker stated that if the goal is taking vehicles off the road, pedestrian services must be
provided in the areas where they make sense. "It's a whole lot cheaper to build a sidewalk than
it is to widen a road."
Mr. Rieley stated that although he is struck by the similarity of the buildings arrangement in
relation to Route 20 to ones criticized recently at Greyrock, simply adding one unit to a
previously approved site area where density should be encouraged is acceptable. But he added
that this type of arrangement should not be acceptable for new proposals.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded that ZMA 98-22 be approved. The
motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
Commissioners commented favorably on the new 6:00 P.M. meeting time. Mr. Loewenstein
added that he has not heard any negative remarks from the public, and indicated the media had
been notified of the new time.
New Business
Commissioner Loewenstein mentioned that the complete packets usually given to the
"%OW" Commissioners at the time of the weekly meeting would be distributed this week on Thursday.
Adiournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
M