Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 13 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1391998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, October 13,1998 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; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Rodney Thomas and Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Planner; Mr. Maynard Sipe, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering. The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was established with all Commission members in attendance. The minutes of September 29, 1998 were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, informed the Commission that the Board of Supervisors is going to public hearing October 21st with the 6-year secondary plan. He stated that the Board has the requests from the Town of Scottsville regarding the secondary road program. Consent Asenda: Five (5) Items Mr. Rieley requested that the item SDP 98-124 be moved to New Business for further discussion. No additional concerns were raised about the consent agenda, and the Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the remaining consent agenda. ------------------------------------------- SP 98-44 and SP 98-55 WOMZ Tower(s) (1) Proposal to replace an existing 345 foot tower with an approximately 520 foot tower in accord with the provisions of Section 22.2.2(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Proposal to replace an existing tower in the floodplain in accord with the provisions of Section 30.3.5.2.2 (4) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 192, consisting of 8.96 acres zoned C-1, Commercial is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Rio Road and Melbourne Road just across the Albemarle County/City of Charlottesville line in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The area is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 2. Mr. Loewenstein requested that two related proposals for WQMZ towers be discussed together although two separate actions would need to be taken. Mr. Fritz presented the combined staff report, stating the proposed new tower is for the purpose of improved radio coverage by allowing the station to use their full signal strength; other users such as personal wireless service providers would also benefit from the reconstruction. He told the Commission that the proposed tower has the potential for increased visibility from areas within the city and particularly to the west, and could also have visibility from residential areas, the Rio Road area near Dunlora, and the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. Mr. Fritz said the alternative to locating the tower on this site r would be location somewhere else in Albemarle County. He summarized staff findings as outlined in his report, and further explained that the new tower would not meet the setbacks required by the ordinance unless a modification is granted (Section 4.10.3.1). 19 Mr. Fritz told Commissioners that staff has contacted the city planning staff, and received no objections from them; also, no comments from the public in the area have been received. He stated that staff recommends approval of the requests subject to staff conditions which are the same for both special use permit requests. Mr. Fritz added that conditions should be amended to include the language "All antennas located on the existing tower may be relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas maybe attached to the tower only as follows....." Mr. Rieley reported on his previously distributed correspondence from City Councilman David Toscano, which he said he received just several hours before the meeting. Mr. Rieley read from Mr. Toscano's letter, which explained that although the tower is located on County property, if it were to fall, it would fall in the city. His letter expressed that surrounding neighborhoods may have concerns about "the visual impact of any extension in the height of this tower. Since we have not had the opportunity to review this application with city neighborhoods and know very little about the strengths and weaknesses of the application, I respectfully request the applicant to remove it from being considered by the Planning Commission this evening." Mr. Toscano's letter requested that if the applicant is unwilling to remove the item, that the Commission deny the application. His letter emphasized that he takes no position on the application, but does have concerns about the possible impacts on city neighborhoods, and hopes that they will be addressed "in a sensitive fashion." Mr. Loewenstein asked staff what they might know about input from city neighborhoods. Mr. Fritz responded that staff had provided information to the city planning department about this application and notified adjacent property owners located within the city on approximately September 25th. He stated that staff had received no responses. Mr. Cilimberg added that the staff notified the city much earlier than that. Mr. Rooker asked how many adjacent property owners exist; staff reported a total of eight, not including the City of Charlottesville itself. Mr. Loewenstein indicated that the public hearing on the items would proceed as scheduled. Responding to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Kamptner stated that as a condition to the special use permit a height limitation could be placed on the tower. The applicant, Dan Miller, General Manager of Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation, described to the Commission the needed to replace the tower, which was constructed in the 1960's. Mr. Miller stated that they are requesting increased tower height so that they can fulfill their license originally granted by the FCC, which allows for operation at 100 meters above average terrain; the current tower is at 44 meters above terrain. He stated that due to FCC review of FM signal coverage for efficiency with the intent of reclassifying stations to reflect current coverage. Mr. Miller said this has become a "use it or lose it scenario" for the stations. He stated that they are licensed to serve the Charlottesville, Albemarle, Greene and Fluvanna County, and the increased tower height will allow the station to more clearly reach the northwestern and Southern portion of Albemarle, and improve coverage to Greene and Fluvanna also. Responding to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Miller stated that beyond the county notice given they have not issued any additional communications to residents of potentially affected neighborhoods regarding the proposed tower. Responding to Mr. Finely's question, Mr. Miller stated the lighting would be the same as the current lighting, red flashing beacons. Mr. Rooker asked if it was possible to achieve maximum radiated power by increasing transmitter power 70: instead of tower height. Mr. Miller responded "No," and added that co -location would not be possible on the current tower, but might be on the new tower. Mr. Miller noted that towers are designed now to fall on themselves, as indicated in the staff reports. Responding to Mr. Rieley's question, Mr. Miller said that the guide wires would be extended in each direction from the base of the tower. Mr. Thomas asked what houses would be in the line of the tower in the event it did fall. Mr. Fritz said the nearest houses in the county were the duplexes recently reconstructed on the east side of Rio Road. Mr. Miller emphasized that they did extensive research to rind an example of a tower that had fallen over, and couldn't find one. Mr. Miller stated that current tower technology is preventing this. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Miller said he was not aware of an FCC waiver that would enable them to boost transmitter power instead of increasing tower height. Mr. Jerry Yacuzi, chief engineer for Charlottesville Broadcasting Corp., addressed the Commission, and explained that the FCC's classification of their station allows them a maximum radiated power is 6,000 watts at 100 meters above average terrain; if their height is lower than what classification standards, they cannot make up the difference with increased effective radiated power. Public comment was invited. Mr. Marshall Slayton, Vice -Chairman of the Charlottesville Planning Commission told the board he received a copy of the staff report prior to the meeting, and echoed Mr. Toscano's concerns about the tower's close proximity to city property. Mr. Slayton stated he saw nothing in the report about the tower's effect on the viewshed from McIntire Park. He stated that this area should be "insulated and protected from the views of development from the outside," and asked the Commission that the city have additional time to review the proposal. Mr. Slayton said the report had been sent to the city Community Development Office, but no one on the City Planning Commission had received the information, an oversight on their department's part. He further stated that while adjacent landowners had been contacted, everyone who can see the tower from their land would also be effected by the, and should also be notified. Mr. Slayton requested that the Commission move the proposal until the city has time to talk to the applicant; he said that the city would need a couple of weeks to meet with the applicant, have a City Planning Commission work session, and talk to landowners. In response to a question from Mr. Loewenstein, Mr. Slayton stated he and other City Planning Commission were not aware of previous contacts the applicant had with other city officials. Ms. Heidi Parker, a representative for Alltell Corporation (formerly 360 Communications) addressed the Commission, and informed them that Alltell is interested in co -locating on the new tower. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Ms. Parker said that Alltell would not be interested in co -locating on the existing tower due to its condition, but they would locate on a new tower at 340 feet. Mr. George Cumming, representing Triton PCS, stated that if they could co -locate on the new tower, Triton would not have to come to the Commission with another tower request for this area; he said that they needed a stronger structure than the existing tower for their co - location. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rooker said he would be more comfortable if the city had an opportunity to meet with the applicant and talk to neighbors in the area. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's concern, Mr. Miller said while they don't want to build a tower the city opposes, but he was reluctant to delay the application because he had already spoken with city officials and already had to refile the proposal for floodplain considerations. Mr. Miller said he would be happy to meet with any officials prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the item be delayed until October 27t', giving the city time for review and still allowing two weeks before the Board of Supervisors consideration. Mr. Loewenstein checked with staff on restating the item, and stated that the item would not have to be reopened for public hearing if it were moved. Mr. Miller stated this was a "great working solution," and added that other radio stations could encroach on their listening area if the tower height was not raised. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that item SP 98-44 and SP 98-55 be deferred to the October 27th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SP 98-45 Boudreau's Inc. Proposal to establish a dance hall with a restaurant in accord with the provisions of Section 24.2.2 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 124F consists of 1.1 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Rio Road and Putt Putt Place in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report, which recommended approval of the proposal subject to the condition outlined in the report, and amended to include an additional condition stating "the dance area within the restaurant area itself should be limited to 280 square feet; the dance area at the rear of the restaurant shall be limited to 1500 square feet and shall be used only in conjunction with catered events and private parties." Mr. Fritz stated that the additional parking needed would be an administrative minor site plan amendment, reviewed as any parking expansion would be, and would be located in the rear of the site. Mr. Rooker said that Police Chief Miller had written a letter requesting that additional calls for service made to the restaurant be charged to the applicant, and asked if it would be appropriate to attach such a condition to the proposal. Mr. Kamptner stated that he would need to research the legality of imposing such a condition, but did tell the Commission a condition could be imposed requiring the applicant to provide adequate security, thus ameliorating the need for extra calls. The applicant's representative Lloyd Snook, addressed the Commission, and noted that the letter was not from the Police Chief, but was written from Lieutenant Courtney Craft to the chief. Mr. Snook commented that the applicant shares the concerns about security, but stated that those issues are not ones of land use. He said that they want a place more similar to the Boar's Head Inn rather than a Max's, and stated that charging more money for food and emphasizing the restaurant aspect could help accomplish this. Mr. Snook said the applicant intends to have security inside and outside so that the establishment is perceived as a safe place. Mr. Snook stated that this site has ample parking, is located far enough away from residential property, is close to a police sub -station, and has adequate traffic flow. Mr. Snook emphasized that the special use permit pertains to the 1500 square foot area in the back of the restaurant intended for catered events and private parties. He said the applicant happily accepts the limitations set forth in the ordinance, and believes the establishment would be a positive benefit to the County. Mr. Snook added that although he has not researched the issue, he does not think the County cannot legally attach a condition that the property owner pay for costs of calls of service as a condition to the special use permit. Mr. Rieley asked if the security guard would be a uniformed, full-time guard on the premises. Mr. Snook responded stated that the guard would be placed only on evenings when there would be live music or dancing. Mr. Thomas asked if the doors would be closed to contain the noise; Mr. Snook responded that they had not considered this issue in detail, but surmised that the doors would probably remain closed so that there would not be a constant flow of inside/outside traffic. He also said that the doors would need to be "openable" in the event of a fire. Public comment was invited. Mr. Douglas Moore, a resident of Liberty Oaks Court, addressed the Commission, stating that he lives approximately 1000 feet from the proposed dance hall. He stated his concerns about the traffic at the entrance of this property onto Rio Road, as there is no stoplight or stopsign at this "dangerous intersection." Mr. Moore expressed concern about a large number of people having several drinks coming out onto the road. He asked if the special use permit conveys with the land or with the business, and was informed that it goes with the land. Upon learning this, Mr. Moore asked the Commission to consider the possibility that if Boudreau's fails, a less desirable establishment could eventually take over that site. Ms. Nancy Pew, another resident of Liberty Oaks Court addressed the Commission, and expressed her concerns that the permit might convey to the property for future uses, and the current proposal might not include adequate measures for dealing with traffic, security and noise. Ms. Pew also stated that when she purchased her home, her understanding was that this site would be an office service area providing an appropriate transition from residential to commercial; the enterprises now in that area perform that function. Ms. Pew expressed concern that this proposal might establish a precedent for this type of use which could be disruptive to the adjacent residential properties. Mr. Loewenstein clarified that this parcel is actually zoned Highway Commercial. Mr. Donald Lyon, President of Raintree Homeowners Association, requested that the special use permit be worded so that if the business fails, as many before it have, the special use permit "dies" with the business so that new applicants "have to start from scratch." Thereby, a door is not open for an ill-conceived establishment to take over the site. Mr. Kamptner said typically the permits run with the land, but there have been situations in the past where time limits have been set on special use permits. Mr. Gordon Yeager, representing All Saints Methodist Church, located directly across the street from this location, stated that his congregation expressed concern about security and traffic on the site, and hoped for some assurance that these problems would be dealt with before they got out of hand. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Snook readdressed the Commission to point out that in the area of the building for which the special use permit would apply there are no windows, and stated that this application would not change the need for a stoplight at that intersection. Responding to Mr. Nitchmann's question regarding the term "dance hall," Mr. Snook clarified that the front part of the building would be a restaurant with a small dance area that would be open to the public every night; the back part would be available for pre -arranged private parties. Mr. Snook said that the language in the conditions could specify the intended uses. M Mr. Nitchmann mentioned that a time limit had been imposed on a previous proposal [pool hall], and Mr. Rooker commented that this would be an appropriate situation to impose a time limit on the special use permit so that "we could take a look at how it actually fit into the community after a period of time rather than be stuck with something that may live forever that no one is happy with." Mr. Snook replied that given the amount of money planned for renovation, the applicant would be motivated to keep the permit from revocation, and added that the applicant may be amenable to a time limit. He said that the applicant is hoping to have the restaurant portion opened by December or January, and the back room opened by March. Mr. Loewenstein asked staff about the traffic concerns, and asked if VDOT had looked at the problematic intersection. Mr. Fritz responded that there is a proffer on this and other property in the area that requires the property owner to contribute to the cost of the traffic signal when determined necessary by VDOT, who have already commented that a signal may be needed at some point. Regarding Mr. Finley's comment that only one condition is recommended, Mr. Fritz recommended also putting in condition form how the applicant has indicated they will operate the property in terms of the square footage. Responding to Mr. Rooker's suggestion to add a condition to spell out the restaurant and dance hall uses, Mr. Fritz stated that the added condition is intended to achieve that. Mr. Rooker also suggested a condition that a uniformed security guard would be provided, and Commissioners agreed the condition could specify providing guards only when the additional dance square footage is utilized. Ms. Washington suggested that a condition be added that the special use permit be reviewed after one year. Mr. Rieley suggested an initial one-year review, with a five-year review period thereafter. vftw MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 98-45 for establishment of Boudreau's restaurant and dance hall be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: - the dance hall portion of the use will only be permitted form 8:00 PM to 1:00 AM - there will be a 280 square foot dance floor in the restaurant space, and an additional 1500 square foot space in the rear of the building used solely for catered events and private parties with the primary use of the site to be a restaurant - the applicant will provide two on -site uniformed security personnel from 8:00 p.m, to 1:30 a.m. when more than 280 square feet of dance area is provided - the special use permit will be reviewed initially after one year, then after five years with specific language to be clarified by staff The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------------- SDP 98 120 Free Union Baptist Church Site Plan Waiver Request Proposal to improve the existing parking lot, which facilitates the need for a site plan. The applicant is requesting a waiver of site plan requirements. This property is located on approximately 1.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 26. The property is located on the northern side of Millington Road [State route 6651 in Free Union in the White Hall Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area. '%We Mr. Finley announced he would abstain from the discussion because he was involved with the site plan. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, which explained that construction of the church pre- dated the county's requirement for a site plan, and the applicant is therefore requesting approval of this waiver. He stated that staff held a site review meeting on September 10, 1998 to which adjacent property owners attended to express their concerns, and included a letter in his report from one adjacent property owner outlining concerns about snow removal, a screening buffer and lighting. Additionally, an underlying concern from adjacent property owners is drainage from the impervious parking lot. Mr. Morrisette reviewed staff plans and solutions for these problems as outlined in his report. He told the Commission that staff is recommending approval of the site plan waiver with conditions, some of which address these specific concerns. He further stated that VDOT has requested that the entrance be shifted approximately 65 feet east to achieve a 350-foot site distance; this has been indicated on the plan. Mr. Morrisette added that VDOT has also imposed a condition that no obstructions be placed in this 350-foot site distance, and said that staff finds this to be a "major improvement with regards to public safety," and added this requirement as a condition of approval. Staff also added as a condition a requirement that 30 inches of soil be installed over the existing drainfield prior to any improvements, as requested by the Health Department. Mr. Morrisette reported the site distance stipulation would limit the amount of parking allowed between State Route 665 and the church, thus facilitating the need for angular parking, and the need for one-way circulation. Mr. Morrisette added that "staff welcomes this design and welcomes these improvements to the church... with this we're getting screening that isn't really there now between the adjacent I%W property and the church; we're going to improve the water runoff situation." He stated that the drainage that carries the water away from the right-of-way will be improved through the erosion control approval and the easements associated with that. Additionally, Mr. Morrisette highlighted movement of the entrance as "a major improvement." Mr. Morrisette concluded that staff supports the site plan waiver, the angular parking waiver and one-way circulation modification requests with conditions as outlined. The applicant, Roy Brewer, chairman of the Free Union Baptist Church long-range building & planning commission, told the Commission that they could not put a gravel parking lot on the site because it is prohibited to put one over a septic field. Mr. Brewer stated "We will do our best to work with the engineering department and follow through with all requests that have been asked of us." Public comment was invited. Robie Gentry, who indicated he lives on the other side of the road from the church, addressed the Commission and asked what was going to be done to "keep that water from washing me away?" Mr. Morrisette responded that proposed improvements to the drainage and engineering approval of an erosion and sediment control plan will mitigate that. Mr. Glenn Brooks from county engineering stated that there is no clear channel there now, and indicated that several options exist to address this, including stormwater management on the site to try to limit the additional water. Mr. Brooks said it is "very hard to judge" what kind of *MW impact the additional water would have. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question of whether engineering plan would protect Mr. Gentry's property. Mr. Brooks stated that one option if there 75 was too much water would be to cut a channel through his yard. "I think we could handle it from an engineering perspective, but from people's personal perspective it's a different matter." In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Brooks stated that Mr. Gentry's permission would be required, and if he didn't agree, there would be an obligation to hold all the additional water on the church property. He further said that the option engineering is exercising is to provide the BMP on the church property. Responding to Mr. Finley, Mr. Brooks said there is no visible erosion currently, but the new paved lot would increase the runoff, estimating the amount at no more than 3 or 4 cubic feet per second. Answering Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Brooks clarified that the downstream channel work would require the landowner's permission, and "if they didn't want to do something on their property, then we would handle it all on -site." Mr. Brooks agreed that the conditions as set forth by staff, whether on -site or not, would adequately address this matter. Mr. Rieley expressed his concern that the proposed channel work across Route 665 would require the property owner's consent, and commented that he would like to strike the channel work item from the staff conditions of approval. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 97-120 be recommended for approval with conditions set forth by staff amended to strike item 6 (d) "approval of final plans for the proposed channel work across Route 665... incorporated with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan." The motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Finley abstaining from the vote. In a separate action, Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded that the angled parking waiver request and one-way circulation modification request be approved. The motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Finley abstaining from the vote. SUB 98 172 Westview Rural Preservation Development Preliminary Subdivision Plat Request for preliminary approval of a Rural Preservation Development (RPD) creating a total of 20 lots and 2 preservation tracts on approximately 218.35 acres. The property is described as Tax Map 19, Parcels 4A and 8 and is located along Buck Mountain Road (route 663) and Buffalo River Road (Routes 664 and 604) approximately 2.5 miles north of Earlysville in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is zoned Rural Area (RA) and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sipe presented the staff report, emphasizing that staff recommends approval of this request with conditions, provided that only one preservation tract is authorized by the Commission. Mr. Sipe stated that approval of two preservation tracts is predicated on the Commission finding that any additional preservation tract furthers the purposes of the proposed RPD better than one tract. Staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that two tracts would further the purpose of an RPD equal to or better than one tract, and can find no reason why two tracts proposed would further the purpose better than one. Mr. Sipe noted that the applicant's proposal has the effect of achieving an additional building lot without applying for a special use permit, which is required for an RPD having 21 development lots or more. He stated that staff believes combining the two tracts will create an acceptable preservation tract, and added that staff recommends approval the waivers in the plan for approval of a private road to serve two lots, and for allowing access to existing public roads. �C Mr. Rieley commented that there has been "an awful lot written about the undesirability of stacking up a lot of lots along long cul-de-sac roadways.... and bring all of that traffic out onto the secondary roads in one place, and yet our ordinance says that lots should face on new roads, rather than on existing state roads." Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Sipe what kind of guidance staff has given the applicant along these lines. Mr. Sipe cited the subdivision ordinance which states that all lots created in a subdivision should access off the public road, that's why a waiver is needed to have access to an existing public road. In response to Mr. Rieley's question, Mr. Sipe described the average lot size as 5.48 acres. Mr. Cilimberg stated that in the Rural Preservation Development ordinance, there is a 2 acre minimum lot size and a lot average of 6 acres maximum, including the roads. In response to Mr. Rieley's question, Mr. Sipe stated that he believes the intended use of the preservation tract is for forestry as it has been utilized for that purpose in the past. Mr. Sipe added that he feels that the amount of contiguous area, the compactness of the tracts and configuration of them was an issue for other practical usage. He also said that there are sometimes conflicts — some of the best buildable areas will also be the best areas for agricultural use -inherent in the Rural Preservation Development, and "you just have to balance that conflict, which I think this application does." In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Sipe said that the cul-de sac could have more than one entrance, if the applicant chose to build more than one road, but that would require a waiver. Mr. Cilimberg added that since the preservation is the key component of this kind of development, then it is the preservation of resources that would drive whether to have more than one road to serve different areas clustered. Mr. Finley said "All lots come out into one outlet on 604, and you have 663 right down the hill there....if I was going to live there, I'd like that other exit...." Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was a problem with the topography that would preclude adding an additional road, to which Mr. Sipe responded "I believe it would be achievable without any undue burden." The applicant, Katurah Roell, addressed the Commission. Mr. Roell reported there are 109 acres in the development lots, and 103 acres in preservation. He added that two of the lots are 14/15 acre lots because they abut Claymont and he didn't want to "jam in" five 3-acre lots next to their preservation tract. Mr. Roell referenced a letter which had been given to the Commission prior to the meeting sent by Audrey Mayo, who owns property adjacent to the proposed Preservation Tract. Mr. Roell said he gave a great deal of property to consideration of locating the road, and decided on its placement because of the rolling topography of the site. He said that he and Mr. Sipe took careful consideration, also, to adequate building sites and septic fields. Mr. Roell told the Commission that the preeminent reason for two preservation tracts is a stream that provides a natural boundary in between them, and the 60 — 80 feet critical slope in between the two parcels. He said that if access was attempted across the stream in any manner, such as building a driveway, it would be quite difficult and destructive to the environment. Mr. Roell added that by limiting what is a 40 acre lot and a 60 acre parcel to the upper knolls of each of those and preserving the rest, it creates an open space buffer that addresses large parcels and separates the ?7 grouping of the residences, He said that a lot of consideration was given to why things were divided the way they were, and thought it would be easier to split the 40 acre parcel and 60 acre parcel and use the natural topography to separate the two sites. Mr. Roell said, "I tried to take a very common sense practical approach to it... there's no ulterior motives, it's a pretty straightforward approach." Mr. Roell said that adding a second entrance was not immediately practical from the standpoint of VDOT's requirements for site distance and left turn lane entering into the development. Mr. Roell stated that the single entrance into the preservation tracts exceeded all residential driveway requirements. He added that VDOT has approved where the existing road site, the entrances to both preservation tracts, and the entrances for the two large lots. Mr. Roell said he came up approximately 20 feet short on meeting VDOT requirements for the left turn lane entrance off of Simmons Gap Road (Route 663). Mr. Roell referenced the map of the site, which showed the site distance requirements from proposed entrance sites. Commissioners Rieley and Nitchmann suggested that County Planning ask VDOT for a waiver for the 20 foot shortfall, and Mr. Sipe cautioned the Commission that they may raise some procedural issues on the time frame for approval. Mr. Roell added that even if they granted the waiver, it may be with conditions which would be unacceptable. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Roell confirmed that the proposed division to the Preservation Tract directly follows the stream. Mr. Nitchmann added it's better to have two entrances to anyplace and "as far as splitting the tract in half, it's still — other than the road going through it — wilderness area. I don't see any problem with that, as long as it's going to stay '*4w forever as a preservation tract." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out a legal case in which a property was split by a public road, whereby the courts ruled it was two properties for purpose of subdivision. "Theoretically, you can divide on each side of that road — your five development rights, plus 21 acre lots, even though it's one parcel. Legally, by that court ruling, it's considered two. With a public road in the middle of the preservation tract, it would legally be considered two parcels." Mr. Loewenstein said he had some concerns about the location of the second road because of some slope issues. Mr. Finley clarified that it is the vertical site distance that is preventing an entrance at the north end of the property on Simmons Gap Road. Public comment was invited. Jim Pond, developer of Claymont, addressed the Commission. He stated that he also had walked the entire length of the proposed road, and stated that is the most logical road path. He said that Claymont also has one long road with a cul-de-sac, and stated that one long road gives security to the homeonwers, and expressed his support for a similar setup with Westview. Mr. Pond spoke in favor of the preservation plan or division for reasons given. No further public comment was given, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rieley expressed concern about the lawn/cul-de-sac pattern, because it "does not contribute very much to the general development pattern of any area." But he said his broader concern with '�.•the proposal is to what degree it achieves the objectives of rural preservation, and "From that perspective, I don't see a whole lot of advantage from the proposal to that of a by -right division... the lots are so big that there almost as big as the ones in the by -right scheme, and yet there's a whole lot more road being constructed in order to achieve that. We're building a lot more roads, and we're not achieving very much in the way of economy, and that's particularly to if the preservation tract is split along the stream.....this plan doesn't do enough to meet the objectives of rural preservation development. The lots need to be smaller... and the preservation tract itself needs to be something that makes sense as a unit, not a gerrymandered leftover." He added, "I think this needs more work and I think it needs to have two entrances....I would support something along those lines, but I can't support this one." Mr. Finley said "Can we really stipulate size of lots because planning has gone through from the ordinance standpoint and concluded that this thing meets the requirements and are willing to say approval with one preservation development tract, it seems like they've met the conditions." Regarding the cul-de-sac layout, Mr. Finely commented "Some people like it that way .... because of security reasons; their children can play more safely." Mr. Rooker commented that he lives in a subdivision with a single entrance, 14 lots and 3 cul-de- sacs, and although it was feasible to put another entrance there "I think everyone there would have opposed it. So I guess the question there is who are we designing this for... essentially we're designing this for the people who live there." Mr. Rooker added that this proposal is "really a pretty good plan" and would be better than the subdivision -by -right alternative. He also said that dividing the preservation tract with a road seems to take away from the whole concept of the rural preservation tract. Mr. Loewenstein agreed, and added that this plan is more sensitive to the topography and natural resources than a by -right development would be. Mr. Rieley contended that the unusual configurations in the by -right hypothetical plan were used to demonstrate how poor it is to sell the other plan. Mr. Rooker responded that using the by -right method and maximizing the number of lots, you end up with some odd lot designs. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finely seconded, that SUB 98-172 be approved subject to the following conditions as set forth by staff: - Tracts A and B to be combined with only one preservation tract permitted. - Lots 19 and 20 shall access the public road only by means of a joint access easement as shown. - The preservation tract shall be permitted to access directly to existing public roads subject to approval of entrances by VDOT. - County staff and Recreational Facilities Authority of rural preservation easement for the preservation tract. - VDOT approval of final drainage plans and calculations. - VDOT approval of final road plans. - Albemarle County Engineering approval of final drainage plans and calculations. - Albemarle County Engineering approval of final road plans. - Albemarle County Engineering approval of soil erosion plans. - Albemarle County Engineering approval of water resources management plan. - Roads built or bonded in accordance with approved road plans; and - Health Department approval of primary and reserve drainfield locations for each lot. on However, Mr. Loewenstein expressed concern over the potential for stream crossing with the two tracts combined, particularly because of the topography of the land on either side of the stream. He added "I'm a little bit disappointed with what may happen over time environmentally *MW to that preservation tract if it's combined into one." In a 6-1 vote with Mr. Rieley dissenting, the motion was passed. This is the final action on this item; it will not be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of waiver of the joint access easement pertinent to the property; the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of a waiver to allow access to existing public roads; the motion passed unanimously. Old Business Mr. Cilimberg presented a schedule of dates for Commissioners to coordinate with staff from the County Attorney's office for orientation and training, etc. intended for new Commissioners but offered for all Commissioners. Mr. Loewenstein stated he highly recommends attending, especially new Commissioners. New Business (From Consent Agenda) — SDP 98-124 Artplace Entrance Site Plan Waiver Request for a site plan waiver for an art gallery, performance space, and snack bar complex in a portion of the existing Charlottesville Oil Building on Ivy road. The applicant will use 1500 square feet of the building; the property is described as Tax Map 59, parcel 80B in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The 1.31 acre site is zoned HC (highway commercial and is designated as Rural areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the plan is based on uses that are by -right uses in a highway commercial district; he stated that the applicant has withdrawn request for a special use permit to operate a dance hall. Mr. Wade presented the staff report stated the proposed improvements to the site would be minor internal and external, and the uses are by -right. He reported that the applicant has incorporated the recommendations from various county departments as well as the ARB including improved circulation, strike parking, and repaving of the entrance; the ARB has reviewed the site plan and recommended planting of trees, which has been done. Mr. Wade said the plan will go back to the ARB within the next several weeks for final review. Mr. Wade said there has been a lot of discussion recently from neighbors regarding what type of activities will take place in the site, and staff has fielded a lot of questions. Mr. Loewenstein said he and other Commissioners have also fielded calls on this matter, but emphasized that this use is already a by -right use, so the request cannot be reviewed in terms of use. Mr. Rieley asked if there would be any changes in the drainage, and Mr. Wade responded that no issues have been raised from engineering or VDOT at this point. Mr. Cilimberg stated the critical issues pertinent to the site were adequate parking and circulation, and said because of the age of the building, there is no site plan. In response to Mr. Rieley's question about getting a formal site plan, Mr. Cilimberg said "This will be on record as you see it, it just won't be on record as meeting all the requirements of the final site plan that we would normally have, but this is the plan of record through the waiver process." Mr. Wade commented that the planting of the trees would be an enhancement to the site, which currently has rusty abandoned oil tanks on it. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the ARB review is now required for building permit activity. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded that SDP 98-124 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioners and staff expressed concern that public response to this item came forth late in the process, but all agreed that public notification on the proposal had been disseminated according to requirements to allow enough time for input and comment. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he wanted Commissioners to be informed of the development department's workplan for the coming year and it would be distributed Thursday, October 15 for discussion at the next meeting. He also added that the Dunlora subdivision report would be forthcoming Thursday for next week's meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.