HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 07 1997 PC MinutesOR
1-7-97
JANUARY 7, 1997
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 7, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Jared
Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. William Finley; and Mr.
David Tice. Other officials present were: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ron Lilley, Senior Planner;
MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Eric Morrisette, Planner; and Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney.
Mr. Cilimberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum
was present.
Election of Officers
Mr. Dotson nominated Mr. Loewenstein for the office of Chairman. Ms. Huckle
seconded the nomination. No other nominations were offered. Ms. Washington
moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the nominations be closed. Mr. Loewenstein
was elected Chairman by a vote of 5:0:1. (Mr. Loewenstein abstained from the vote.
Mr. Finley had not yet arrived at the meeting.)
Mr. Dotson nominated Mr. Tice for the office of Vice Chairman. Ms. Washington
seconded the nomination. No other nominations were offered. Mr. Nitchmann moved,
Ms. Huckle seconded, that the nominations be closed. Mr. Tice was elected Vice
Chairman by a vote of 6:0:1. (Mr. Tice abstained from the vote.)
Ms. Huckle nominated Mr. Cilimberg for the office of Secretary. Mr. Dotson seconded
the nomination. No other nominations were offered. Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington
seconded, that the nominations be closed. Mr. Cilimberg was unanimously elected
Secretary.
Meeting Day, Time, Location
Ms. Huckle suggested that the meeting day, time and location remain the same, i.e.
Tuesday, 7:00 p.m., County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. No alternative
times were suggested. Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Albemarle
County Planning Commission meet on Tuesdays, at 7:00 p.m., in the Albemarle
County Office Building. The motion passed unanimously.
/2(
1-7-97
2
The minutes of the December 10, 1996, meeting were unanimously approved as
amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the January 2nd Board of
Supervisors meeting.
-------------------------------------
SDP 96-120 Christworks Ministries Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to
construct two buildings in phases totaling 5,125 square feet for
warehousing/distribution. Property, described as Tax Map 56A(2), Parcel 68 consists
of 3.1 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. This site is located on the south side of Route
240 at the end of a private road, west of and adjacent to ConAgra in the White Hall
magisterial District. This site is recommended for Industrial Service Use in Crozet.
Mr. Finley disclosed that he had performed the survey for the applicant. He performed
this service as a charitable contribution and received no compensation. He asked the
County Attorney to rule on the question of whether this association constituted a
Conflict of Interests. Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Finley if he felt he could offer a fair and
objective ruling on this proposal. Mr. Finley responded affirmatively. Mr. Kamptner
concluded that no Conflict was present.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Though the staff report stated a site plan waiver
was needed, it was later the determination of the Site Review Committee that a waiver
was not needed because the plan does meet all the requirements of a site plan. The
applicant is, however, requesting relief from a requirement of the installation of a fire
hydrant on site. The staff report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the cost associated
with the provision of a hydrant is such that public water for purposes of providing a fire
hydrant is not reasonably available, and that approval of this request will not endanger
the public safety. Therefore, staff is able to support a request to modify the provisions
of Section 32.7.6.1"
The applicants, Roland and Linda Beard, addressed the Commission and described
their organization, the main activity of which is to distribute free food to the needy.
The two buildings will be used to store the food while it is awaiting distribution to area
churches. Those churches then distribute the food to the community.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Maynard Jones expressed support for the request.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Christworks
Ministries Site Plan Waiver Request be approved, subject to the following condition:
137
1-7-97 3
S%011 1. Approval of a waiver of the requirement of the location of a afire hydrant on site in
accord with Section 32.7.6.1. However, the Fire Official may require a fire hydrant or
such alternative provisions as deemed reasonably necessary to provide adequate fire
protection at any time a use change occurs.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 96-21 - Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust (Owner), The Peabody School
(Applicant) - Proposal to amend the Development Plan for the Mill Creek Planned
Unit Development, as established with ZMA 85-29, to change a 5-acre portion from an
Industrial designation to a Commercial designation to allow development of a private
school by special use permit. Property, described as Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 15, is on
Stony Ridge Road on the north side of Southern Parkway, adjacent to Carolina
Builders, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is zoned PUD-LI (planned
for light industrial use), with proffers and is designated for Industrial Service
development in Urban Neighborhood 4.
AND
SP 96-46 - Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust (Owner), The Peabody School
w, (Applicant) - Proposal to establish a private school with an ultimate enrollment of 140
students on a 5-acre portion of the Mill Creek Planned Unit Development presently
designated for Light Industrial development. Property, described as Tax Map 76M 1,
Parcel 15, is on Stony Ridge Road on the north side of Southern Parkway, adjacent to
Carolina Builders, in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
_►1
SDP 96-113 - Peabody School Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 10
modular classroom units, totaling 12,540 square feet, on a 5-acre parcel in the Mill
Creek Industrial Park. Property, described as Tax Map 76M 1, Parcel 15, is on Stony
Ridge Road on the north side of Southern Parkway, adjacent to Carolina Builders, in
the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is zoned PUD-LI (planned for light
industrial use), with proffers and is designated for Industrial Service development in
Urban Neighborhood 4.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of both the ZMA and
SP requests. (Pages 5 and 6 of the staff report list the reasons for staffs
recommendation for denial.) Staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan,
if the rezoning and special permit are approved.
Mr. Tice asked staff to comment on the total amount of industrial land in the County
which is available for development. Mr. Benish said it is not a question of a county-
wide shortage, rather the issue is more related to this neighborhood, i.e. "are we
/2 9
1-7-97 4
providing a range of land use opportunities?" He said it was a "tough call" for staff.
He said there are approximately 46 acres located in three or four different places in
this neighborhood. "We may be reaching a point where those opportunities are limited
in that area.... We feel that's a decision (the Commission) needs to make and be
comfortable with --that continued erosion of that acreage." (Mr. Benish said the total is
approximately 60 acres if the acreage of the Landfill is included.)
Mr. Fritz confirmed this proposal would not remove the acreage from the PUD, it
would simply change the designation, within the PUD, from Industrial to Commercial.
By -right uses which would be allowed if this change is made would be those which are
by -right in the CO and the C1 (basically retail) ones. Highway Commercial uses would
not be available here. Mr. Fritz confirmed that it is possible to proffer out uses in a
PUD, "through a modification to the Application Plan." No proffers have been offered
in this proposal.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Harriett Kaplan, Director of the Peabody
School. She described in some detail the school's site selection process, a process
which has taken 4 years. She addressed specifically staffs list of unfavorable
factors." (She was assisted by Mr. Lane Bonner, the realtor who has assisted the
school in finding a site, Mr. Hunter Craig, owner of the property, and Mr. John Russell,
representing the school's parents.) Comments included the following:
--This is clearly a "mixed -use" area and the school would not be "out of
character."
--The proposed structure will be much more aesthetically acceptable than what
could be placed on the site with industrial zoning.
--Being adjacent to Carolina Builders is not of concern to the school, particularly
compared to the location which the school is presently using. Ultimately, a
gymnasium will be on the side of the property closest to Carolina Builders.
--The school promises never to object to any future industrial neighbors.
--The temporary modular unit which will be constructed is not as described in
the staff report. It will be brought to the site in sections which will then be put together
to create one attractive building. (Ms. Kaplan showed a photograph of a similar --
though not the same --type building.) The temporary building will be used only a short
time. It is anticipated that construction on a new permanent facility can begin in
approximately 2 years. (The temporary unit will be ready in September, 1997.)
--This site's close proximity to PVCC offers unique educational opportunities.
Piedmont's President has said the Peabody School may be able to use some of
PVCC's new facilities, e.g. the Humanities Building, the athletic fields and tennis
courts.
--This site is centrally located for those families which the school serves.
--There is no plan to clear the entire site. Only clearing necessary to
accommodate the buildings and the playing fields will be done.
--The school will ultimately offer grades K-8. There are no plans to go beyond
8th grade.
/Iy
1-7-97 5
--Mr. Russell praised the school and stressed that it meets special needs for
children who are "intellectually advanced", but whose needs may not be met in the
traditional public school setting.
--Mr. Bonner said the records show there is very little demand for industrial land
in the County. Two to three acres are sold each year. There is presently 1,200 acres
of industrial land (county -wide).
--Mr. Craig described the adjacent properties: to the west is the Foxcroft
Subdivision; to the east is Bright Beginnings Day Care Center; to the north is industrial
property, with Carolina Builders being contiguous on the north. There has been no
demand for the 25 acres of industrial property in the PUD. The owner of Carolina
Builders, when asked his opinion about having the school as a neighbor said "I would
be glad to have the company." This change would make a good transition between
the residential and industrial properties.
Mr. Tice asked Ms. Kaplan if any consideration was given to proffers which would limit
the uses on the property. Ms. Kaplan replied: I would be happy to. I have no plans
to do anything other than what is stated here. I would be happy to do whatever is
necessary."
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about safety, given the fact that tractor trailers, serving
Carolina Builders, travel on this roadway. Ms. Kaplan expressed no concern. She
rrr stressed the students are very well trained in safety issues. She said the school has
never had a traffic related accident, even though their present facility is on Angus
Road and the children must cross the street to get to their play area.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Stacey Fontz and Ms. Debra Younger, parents of children in the school, praised
the school. Ms. Younger said the school meets the emotional needs of gifted children
which no other schools in the area meet.
Ms. Kirsten Howard, a Mill Creek resident, expressed support for the school. She felt
it would be more of an asset to the neighborhood than would an industrial use.
Mr. Bill Howard, Real Estate III, addressed the issue of the supply of industrial
property. He said the price of industrial property in this community is too expensive
for industrial use. He said potential industries are locating in adjoining counties where
industrial property is $4,000 - $6,000/acre. He recited some figures on the length of
time which certain pieces of industrial property (listed by his company) have been on
the market.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about remaining industrial property in this PUD,
Mr. Craig said there are presently 24.6 acres. He said there is presently no limit on
the type of industrial uses which could locate on the property. Ms. Huckle expressed
/�10
cm
OR
cm
1-7-97
C:
concern about the possibility of a use which might be totally incompatible with the
school.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that whatever the Commission's recommendation might be on
these applications, those recommendations would in no way be related to the merits of
the Peabody School or its contribution to the community.
Mr. Dotson said the staff had correctly advised the Commission of the limited industrial
acreage available. It seems much of the land is in the northern part of the county and
staffs concern seems to be with the fact that there is very little of the total industrial
land in this particular area. He continued: "Nonetheless, all the problems that have
been recited with finding a site for a school shows that there is a scarcity of sites for a
whole variety of uses, not just industry. We have a scarcity of industrial sites of a
certain type and we have a scarcity of school sites. In some sense, in my mind, I
think that is sort of a wash. This is a good site for some kinds of uses --it happens to
be for the school." He said the fact that a school was recently approved across the
street (Bright Beginnings) enters into his evaluation of this request in terms of equal
treatment. He concluded: "I also believe, if this were approved, before it gets to the
Board of Supervisors, the applicant might suggest some proffers and put those in
writing, to limit the uses of this which I think would guarantee that it will be compatible
with the neighborhood in the way that it has been presented. Given those things,
think staffs advice has been sound, but I would be in favor of approving the request."
Mr. Nitchmann, noting this site lies in his district, said he agreed with Mr. Dotson. He
said: "I think it is a good site and it is just across from the school we recently
(approved). I think it is a good adjacent use. I also agree with some of the neighbors
who say they would rather see a structure with the facade proposed (than what might
be placed on the site if it is developed with an industrial use). I also favor it because
it is a private school and will help reduce our taxes. It will take some children off the
tax roles. I think it is also providing something that is really needed in this community.
... We have a tendency sometime to overlook the needs of the gifted children." He
agreed that proffers would protect the neighbors in the event the use on the site might
change at some future time.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZMA 96-21 for Mill Creek
Industrial Land Trust - The Peabody School, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval, with the understanding proffer language will be developed
prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Discussion:
/ Y_/
M
1-7-97
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about how the remaining industrially zoned land in the
Mill Creek PUD might possibly develop and whether or not some industrial uses might
adversely impact the school. She said she was still undecided on this request.
Mr. Finley asked what type of proffers are envisioned. He asked if it was the intent of
the Commission that only a school could be placed on this property. Mr. Cilimberg
suggested the proffer should probably be more "open, keeping to all CO uses" so that
an office use could be placed on the site. Mr. Keeler added that offices uses are
already permitted in the industrial zone, so that would not be a change from what
could be done under the industrial designation. "You would simply be allowing them
some alternative use of the property if they ever needed to sell or whatever. It would
still be limited, and more in keeping with the area, but would be a more limited class
of uses than if it remained industrial. The alternative use would simply be office
buildings." Mr. Finley asked if that was the intent of the motion.
Mr. Fritz said he had some language in mind which he would propose to the applicant
which would limit the use to the by -right CO uses and any special use which might be
approved, i.e. it would allow essentially the same uses as are permitted on the
property now less the purely industrial uses." Ms. Kaplan interjected: "I would
certainly agree to that proffer."
Mr. Kamptner noted that proffers would have to be submitted in writing and signed by
the owner of the property prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting.
The motion for approval of ZMA 96-21 passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting
the dissenting vote.
The Chairman called for a motion on the Special Permit.
Mr. Fritz reminded the Commission the special permit included the use of a temporary
non-residential "mobile home." Mr. Dotson asked if the term "mobile home" was
accurate. Mr. Fritz said the structure falls into that category even though it will have
the appearance of a site -built structure. Mr. Cilimberg added it was the Zoning
Administrator's determination that the proposed structure falls into this category.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 96-46 for Mill Creek
Industrial Land Trust - The Peabody School, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. The school shall be limited to a maximum of 140 students
/�/z
1-7-97
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a modification of
Section 5.8, to allow the use of a temporary non-residential mobile home, be approved
for the Peabody School.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman called for action on the Peabody School Preliminary Site Plan. Staff
recommended that action be deferred to February 18th, after the Board has acted on
the ZMA and SP.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Peabody
School Preliminary Site Plan be deferred to February 18th. The motion passed
unanimously.
SP 96-41 Forest Springs Mobile Homes Sales - Petition to establish outdoor storage
and display of mobile homes for sale in addition to existing auto sales on
approximately 7.9 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 43, zoned RA, Rural Areas, HC, Highway Commercial, and EC,
00, Entrance Corridor, and Parcel 43A, zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District, is located approximately 1/4 mile (.5 km) south of
Rt. 649 on the west side of Rt. 29 North in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site
is recommended for Regional Service in the Hollymead Community. Deferred from
the December 3, 1996 Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He said the review is limited to the impact of
outdoor storage on the Entrance Corridor. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. (NOTE: Mr. Fritz corrected condition No. 1 by explaining that a comma
should be inserted after the word "units.")
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment on the this request's relation to ZMA 96-25, a
separate request by the applicant, which seeks to amend the proffers for this site to
eliminate the service road connection between this site and the mobile home park.
Mr. Fritz said there is presently a proffer in place on this property which requires the
construction of a road which would allow mobile homes to be moved from this
commercial area to the mobile home park without having to use any public roads.
The applicant has recently submitted a request to eliminate that proffer so that a
connecting road, between this property and the mobile home park, would not be
required. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the elimination of that connecting road would have
any impact on public safety. Mr. Fritz expressed hesitation to respond, saying: "As it
stands right now, at the time of this request, that connecting road is required. If the
proffers are lifted, then no connection will be required. We haven't reviewed that
request. It is also staffs opinion that this is by special permit solely because of its
1-7-97 9
location within the Entrance Corridor District and our review is limited solely to the
impact of this on the Entrance Corridor District. We have not analyzed a connection
between this request and anything else." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that when the
Commission, Board and staff evaluates the rezoning request to delete the connecting
road, the fact that the special permit exists will be a part of that analysis and a
judgment will have to be made at that time in relation to safety concerns.
Ms. Huckle recalled that the only reason this use had been approved without a
development plan for the entire commercial acreage, was so that mobile homes could
be sold to residents of the mobile home park, and the connecting road was included to
address concerns about traffic on Rt. 29. Mr. Fritz agreed that was a part of the
review. Mr. Keeler said staff will provide all previous documents related to this site at
the time of the review of the rezoning request to delete the road.
Ms. Huckle thought it would have been helpful to have had those documents for this
review. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the rezoning request is not before the Commission
at this time. Mr. Cilimberg said all those documents were not provided because staff
was "trying to not to bias this review with the understanding there might be a rezoning
request coming, because when we started this review there wasn't even a rezoning
request in place." He concluded: "So any action that takes place is based solely on
the zoning that exists there and any change to that zoning is new business. Nothing
you do here, or the Board will do, guarantees that that zoning is going to change just
because they made an application."
Mr. Tice asked if the Commission could add a condition to this permit which would
require the connecting road to remain in place. Mr. Kamptner responded: "Because
this special permit is before you because the property is within the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District, your review is limited to its compliance with the purpose and intent of
that district, in terms of the historic character and aesthetics of the corridor." Mr. Tice
asked: Might not the aesthetics of the corridor change if mobile homes were being
taken out onto 297' Mr. Kamptner replied: "Those are really, essentially, vehicles
using 29 instead of the connector road. Whether it was vehicles or on 29, it is not
necessarily a use of the land."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Batchelor. His comments included the
following-
--The intent is to "make the four units up in the corner look like a village ... on the
north side of the drive."
--The difference between the 1993 approval and this request is a
"rearrangement of how we'll display the units."
--A sales center located on Rt. 29 is necessary so that the public can find it
easily. This will result in more sales because it will be accessible to persons other
than those who will be locating in the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. More sales
mean lower prices.
/7
1-7-97 10
--"The four homes that are up there and the 4 homes that will be displayed to
the north of this, will be there for a period of time before they are sold and moved
because they will be display models and will be set up in such a way that makes it
expensive to take them down and re -erect them. They will then be moved to other
places in the park. We anticipate 8, 10, 12 homes, over the period of time until the
park is full, will be moved from the sales center to the park. Most homes will be
ordered from the factory and delivered directly to the park. It will be an extremely rare
case for a home in the sales center to go directly to the park."
--Only new homes will be sold.
--It is hoped that the area to the north can be left much in its original state
"because we can fit 4 to 6 homes in there on the contour." However, the ordinance
says display areas must be gravel, so "if we have to take it down to gravel it we will
but we would like to get a waiver for that if possible."
--The existing house will remain and will serve as an office.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Commission. Her statement, describing PEC's reasons for opposing this request, is
made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.
Ms. Kathy Ryan, a resident of Chris Green Lake Road, addressed the Commission
and expressed opposition to the request. She asked when the development plan for
the entire commercial property was going to be submitted, as was originally required.
She expressed concerns about piecemeal development on Rt. 29 and about the threat
to safety that mobile homes being moved along this section of Rt. 29 will create. She
also expressed concern about the potential deletion of the road which is supposed to
connect this site to the mobile home park. She said the second means of access to
the mobile home park is needed in the event of emergency situations. Pointing out
that Rt. 29 is a main entrance corridor into the county, she felt the mobile home sales
business should be totally screened from Rt. 29.
Mr. Wendall Wood, the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments were
primarily about the road connecting the mobile home park to this sales center, (a road
which was proffered as a part of the original rezoning, but which he recently filed a
request to have deleted.) Addressing some of Ms. Ryan's comments, he said the
road would not be used by emergency vehicles.
Mr. Nitchmann said this seemed like a "chicken and egg situation," i.e. the sales
center is needed in order to get the park moving. Referring to a condition on the 1993
special permit --("The inventory shall include mobile homes which meet the noise
attenuation standards on ZMA-92-14.)--which was referenced in PEC's statement, Mr.
Nitchmann said this condition does not mean that all mobile homes which locate in the
mobile home park must meet these noise standards, rather it means that units which
meet those standards must be included in those models sold by the sales center. Mr.
on
1-7-97
11
Wood confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Nitchmann's statement. Mr. Wood added: "It
was never intended, or proposed, that the sales center would serve only the mobile
home park."
Regarding a plan for the entire commercial area, Mr. Wood said there are no plans at
this time and it is "premature" to create a plan at this time. He said it is designed to
be a regional shopping center, but he did not know when that would actually take
place.
Regarding VDOT's statement that improvements to Rt. 29 will significantly impact this
property, Mr. Wood said the only plans he is aware of is for the addition of a lane (12
feet) which he did not view as a major impact to the property.
Mr. Wood said he hopes to open the park, weather permitting, within 90 days. It will
open with 115 totally finished lots.
Public comment continued.
Mr. Steve Riley expressed concerns about the introduction of mobile home traffic onto
Rt. 29.
Ms. Karen Strickland, an Earlysville resident, urged the Commission to uphold the
conditions of the previous approvals, particularly that there should be a unified plan of
development and that 100 lots must be in place before the mobile homes sales area
can open. She felt it was difficult to consider this request apart from the pending
request to delete the connector road. She reminded the Commission the mobile home
park had been approved solely to provide affordable housing.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Because there seemed to be different understandings of previously approved
conditions, Mr. Dotson asked staff to comment. Mr. Fritz replied: The site plan for
mobile homes sales says ... that the site plan for mobile homes sales would not be
signed until a site plan for 100 mobile home lots as also been signed. Not in place,
but rather a plan had been approved for 100 units. The Comprehensive Plan had
language which said, in essence, that commercial development should not occur until
100 units were in place. That's where you're getting the difference in language --
between what the Comprehensive Plan stated and what the proffers stated. The
proffers stated no commercial until a plan for 100 units had been signed. The
Comprehensive Plan stated no commercial until those 100 units were actually in
place." Mr. Cilimberg added: "That proffer being referred to no longer exists because
the site plan was signed for the mobile home park, so it was not necessary. So with
ZMA 95-17, that proffer was not included (because it had already been satisfied)."
/A00
1-7-97 12
Ms. Huckle said the July 15, 1993 minutes "do not say anything about it being signed;
it says developed." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "The signed reference was in a proffer
in the Zoning Map Amendment. You're referring to the Comprehensive Plan
language, which was somewhat different. It did, basically, refer to 100 lots."
Ms. Huckle said she thought there was considerable difference between "signed" and
"developed." Mr. Fritz said that particular issue had been discussed at the time of the
rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg explained further: "Another consideration made during the special use
permit review for mobile home sales and display (approved as SP-93-14 in July
1993)... was that the Board at that time was recognizing some relationship between the
specific sales and the establishment of a mobile home park. That's primarily the
reason why the Board allowed the SP to be approved somewhat inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, which was calling for a general plan of development for all 50
acres. It was because there was a specific tie between that sales use and the mobile
home subdivision." Mr. Keeler added: "I think the proffer that deals with the signing
of the site plan, was connected to the site plan for the lots, as opposed to having
those lots occupied. If you can't sell until you've already got 100 lots occupied, that's
100 potential sales lost." Mr. Cilimberg said staff is continuing to consider the
relationship of the mobile home sales use to the mobile park in its analysis of the
request for the deletion of the connector road. He said, however, "that relationship
gets somewhat compromised by a zoning map amendment change that would drop
the connector road. (But) that is a matter of new business, and one you will have to
consider seriously."
Ms. Huckle said she had visited the mobile home park project. She was skeptical that
what she had viewed was developed lots.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to comment on a statement made by Marsha Joseph (then the
ARB's staff planner), in her letter to Claudia Paine (dated November 19) which said
"The plan is inconsistent with the suggestions made by the ARB." Mr. Fritz replied: "I
believe it is, because screening is not shown on the plan." Mr. Fritz said screening
could be required as part of the site plan requirements. He noted that the plan will
have to get a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB. Mr. Keeler thought there
had also been an issue with an area "behind the building on the right" which is shown
to be used for parking. He said he thought the applicant had agreed to move that
parking area. He once again pointed out that the site plan is not presently before the
Commission and the ARB's comments were made during their preliminary review.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to explain how approval of this request was related to the
status of the plan which was on display. Mr. Fritz replied: "That drawing is a plan we
have under review and it is simply to provide the Commission with a reference point.
`A- It still needs to satisfy the conditions that have been proposed, one being 'all areas
shown on the plan ... noted as Display Areas, are to be screened from Rt. 29.' They'll
/�7'
1-7-97
13
have to either preserve those trees, or establish screening of those display areas. If
that requires additional screening or amendment to the display areas, then that will
have to be done."
Mr. Dotson asked staff to comment on the applicant's statement that it is impossible to
develop a meaningful master plan at this time, even though the Comprehensive Plan
calls for a master plan. Mr. Cilimberg said this particular site is only a portion of the
overall acreage, and the zoning on this piece is only on this small acreage. He said:
"At such time as the applicant would look to rezone any of that commercial property
that is not currently zoned, that it is the point in time at which we would require a
master unified plan to be submitted, and we would anticipate that the whole area
would be covered under that rezoning action." Mr. Cilimberg said an overall
development includes the major road network, defined development areas, defined
open space areas, buffers, types of uses, square footage of uses, and overall square
footage. A development plan will also include a traffic study which will include, among
other things, a determination as to the location of entrances. He repeated that he felt
the only reason the Board had departed from the requirement for a master plan in
1993, was because of the specific tie of this mobile homes sales to the mobile home
park.
Mr. Dotson concluded his comments: "More and more we are becoming concerned
about how the designated growth areas are developing. I think, more and more, we
may need to take a look at the bigger piece of the puzzle as all the small pieces fit
together. In some cases we will be looking at infill of vacant pieces. In other cases
we will want to know how some areas are going to be knit together by a much larger
acreage. Right now I feel an overall development plan is far more important that I
would have felt a year ago because of the new appreciation of what we need to be
doing in our planning. I don't see that as an obstacle on this action, but I would like it
clearly understood, for future rezonings, I am going to be looking for an overall
development plan."
Mr. Tice repeated his understanding of Mr. Kamptner's statement early in the hearing
that any conditions attached to this permit would have to be related to its location on
an entrance corridor. Mr. Tice asked: "Nonetheless, don't we have an obligation to
address and protect public safety and welfare?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "Yes. But you
considering the special use permit under the property as it is currently zoned, and the
proffers require that there be an access connector road between the mobile home
sales lot and the park. So, right now, it is assumed that the public safety concern is
addressed by that proffer. This may be a factor you consider during the ZMA review,
but, for the purposes of this special use permit, you have a requirement that there be
this connector road to transport the mobile homes."
Mr. Tice, after hearing all the discussion, said he has some significant questions about
the change which has occurred in what he, and a large part of the community,
"expected and assumed from the previous Commission and Board actions on this --that
1-7-97 14
the connection was a significant link between this property and the mobile home park."
He said it seems staff relied a great deal on the ARB's assessment "that the character
of the district will not be changed and the use will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance." He concluded: "I guess, at a minimum, I would like more
information on exactly what the analysis of the ARB was." He wondered if the ARB
was fully aware of the change which is being contemplated in connection to the
request to delete the connector road.
Mr. Nitchmann said it was his understanding that the applicant has met all the
conditions of the approvals which have been granted thus far. Mr. Fritz responded:
"The zoning is in place. The only think lacking that is necessary to allow the mobile
home sales to be established is the special use permit. The zoning is in place; the
proffers have been met for the establishment of a commercial activity on this property
and all that is remaining is the issuance of the special use permit and the approval of
the site plan." Mr. Keeler added: "And as the proffers are currently written --the
construction of the road." Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "The proffers are in place; the
road's got to be there. That's not an issue. ... Right now, I am viewing this as the
road's there and if next month the Board decides that the road's not there, then the
road's not there." Mr. Fritz confirmed: "That's a correct analysis of the situation. "
Mr. Nitchmann concluded: " My feeling about the ARB is that they have their job to
do --to make sure that it looks pretty out there and I am not going to start reviewing
what the ARB is doing because that will be covered when the site plan comes before
us."
Mr. Tice said he, based on the information presented during this meeting, wanted to
know about the ARB's consideration of this request and how they had come to their
conclusions. He suggested a deferral of the request so that the ARB's representative
could appear before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle said it is her impression the ARB's review deals with the aesthetic issues
of a proposal, e.g. landscaping, colors, design. She said that though she agreed
with many of the comments made by the public, her main concern was that of safety.
She said the traffic along Rt. 29 has increased significantly since the approval of the
mobile home park and the mobile homes sales use. She concluded: "I think it would
be irresponsible of us to sit here and approve this for mobile homes."
Mr. Finley commented: "The park is approved, as I understand it, and the trailers are
coming from somewhere. I believe the applicant said only 12 or so units will actually
be moved from this site to the mobile home park. Others will come from the factory
directly to the mobile home park. In any case, they will still have to travel on Rt. 29 to
reach the park, whether there are sales at this site or not." (Ms. Huckle said it would
be much safer to turn onto Airport Road, once it has been widened, than to try to turn
into this site at a location where traffic is travelling very fast.")
M
1-7-97 15
Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Finley, i.e. "they're going to get there whether we
approve this or not. It just may take a longer period of time for him to get 100 mobile
homes on the lots."
Ms. Huckle said she didn't think the sale of mobile homes had to be approved here.
(Staff corrected this explaining that the site has already been approved for the sale of
either mobile homes or automobiles.)
Mr. Finley said it was his understanding that sales have already been approved and
the only issue before the Commission is a special permit to allow the outdoor display
because of the location on an entrance corridor. He acknowledged that a subsequent
zoning action may or may not delete the connector road. He said he was prepared to
support the request.
The Chairman called for a motion.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP-96-041 for Forest
Springs Mobile Home Sales Lot be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
The motion for approval failed to pass (3:4) with Commissioners Nitchmann, Finley,
and Dotson voting for the motion and Commissioners Washington, Huckle,
Loewenstein and Tice voting against.
Though Mr. Tice offered to make an alternative motion to defer action, Mr. Kamptner
explained that action had already been taken, i.e. it failed to obtain the required
number of votes for approval, so it will be passed on to the Board with no
recommendation from the Commission.
The meeting recessed from 9A5 to 9:55.
SP-96-49 The Tandem School - Proposal to amend the current Special Use Permit
for Tandem School (SP-96-06) to expand the facilities for the school to include a field
house of approximately 13,000 square feet. Property, described as Tax Map 91,
Parcels 2A and 213, is the present site of The Tandem School, presently accessed off
of Route 20, approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 64, in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. The property is zoned R-1 and is designated for Institutional Use in
Neighborhood 4. Deferred from the December 17, 1996 Commission meeting.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that there have been issues raised with previous projects
about stormwater management in this area. Mr. Lilley said those issues will be
/5-D
1-7-97 16
addressed at the time of the final site plan approval process. He noted, however, that
this facility is on the western side of the ridge. Thus the drainage from this facility will
drain away from Rt. 20, towards Avon Street. Previous concerns have been about
runoff which drains to the east, towards Rt. 20. This facility will not impact the runoff
which drains to the east. He confirmed that a portion of this site will drain to the lake
on the new high school site.
Ms. Huckle suggested that the "attached preliminary site plan" referred to in condition
No. 1 should be more clearly identified. Later in the meeting Mr. Lilley added the
following to condition No. 1: "...plan dated 11/11/96, revised 12/10/96 and initialled
RAL (Attachment A)."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Powers, Business Manager for Tandem
School. He said this physical education facility has been needed for some time. He
offered to answer Commission questions.
Ms. Huckle asked if perhaps it is premature to build this facility. She suggested it
would be more cost efficient to wait until public water and sewer is available. Mr.
Powers responded by explaining the various options that the applicant has considered.
He said it is possible that the gymnasium could be used without either water or sewer
if necessary because water and sewer are available at the other school buildings. He
also said a "pump and haul' system has been considered for sewage. Mr. Lilley
interjected that the building will have to have water and sewer, but it is possible that
the usage can be limited in such a way that the temporary measures which will need
to be installed will be adequate until public connection is available. It was determined
that the existing drainfield cannot serve the new gym because it is on the opposite
side of the building and pumping would be required.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tim Scovill, a resident of the Lakeside Subdivision, addressed the Commission.
He wanted assurance that the runoff from this site would not worsen the drainage
problems which already exist in this area. He read a very lengthy prepared statement
wherein he described problems he has experienced with stormwater runoff, which he
said began when the Willow Lake Subdivision was constructed. His statement also
described his frustration and disappointment with the way the County has handled the
runoff and also the manner in which County staff has addressed his concerns. He
referred to what he described as "significant errors of substance" in written county
documents about the drainage issues for this area. He expressed the belief that the
Commission and Board of Supervisors were misinformed by County staff about the
drainage problems. He feared this gymnasium project could potentially worsen the
problems which already exist. He wanted assurance that "there would be absolutely
no increase in runoff." He concluded by requesting that the Commission initiate an
independent study of stormwater conditions in this section of Rt. 20.
/S/
1-7-97 17
The Chairman invited Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering for the County, to address
some of the issues raised by Mr. Scovill. Mr. Kelsey said a number of issues have
been raised regarding this property and he and the County's Development Review
Manager have been dealing with these issues since October, 1996, including meeting
with Mr. Scovill. He is presently preparing a written response to Mr. Scovill's most
recent questions. He offered to make copies of all relevant correspondence for the
Commission. He said this particular project drains the opposite direction --away from
Cow's Branch --and is a separate issue that which is of concern to Mr. Scovill. Mr.
Nitchmann asked Mr. Kelsey if he agrees there is a problem with drainage in this
area. Mr. Kelsey responded: "We agree the culvert is smaller than what the present
Ordinance would require for any subdivision now.... Willow Lake was built prior to the
existence of County ordinances."
Mr. Tice suggested that this is a topic which should be addressed during discussions
of the Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance.
Noting that this property is in his District, Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to be kept
informed of any developments related to this drainage issue, particularly "can the
problems be fixed, when can they be fixed, what is the cost, and who's going to pay?"
Mr. Kelsey said a main concern is the possibility that the culvert could "blow out" and
make access to the subdivision impassable. This is a safety concern. He said:
"We're concerned enough to do a cost -share on it. Right now I don't have any
directive to make the County take full responsibility for replacement. We're looking at
trying to size the crossing to at least pass a 10-year storm, which is the minimum
required by the Highway Department on a secondary road." He gave a rough
estimate of $100,000. Mr. Kelsey added that his research has shown that right-of-way
was never dedicated to public use and no record of a homeowners' association exists.
(Mr. Keeler pointed out that the subdivision was put to record prior to the existence of
the County Planning Department.)
Mr. Elliott Fendig, representing McKee -Carson, the applicant's engineers, addressed
the Commission. He affirmed that stormwater management issues will be addressed
during the final site plan submittal process. He, too, confirmed that this building will
be built on the ridge opposite that about which Mr. Scovill raised concerns. He
clarified that issues related to septic adequacy (showers, bathroom usage, water
usage, etc.) were not stormwater management issues. He was not aware of any
drainage problems in the watershed into which this part of the property will drain,
though he admitted he had not looked into the issue. He repeated that requirements
for stormwater management will be addressed in the site plan approval process.
Ms. Huckle said a failing drainfield can become a stormwater issue. (Though the staff
report contained a statement from Mr. Gary Rice of the Health Department which
stated that "the septic system is sufficient for 177 persons, but that maxes the
`+ drainfield out it," Mr. Keeler noted that the school's septic system is not failing.)
/S �
1-7-97 18
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he was satisfied, based on the comments made, that the drainage
"drains the other way." He asked that staff make certain that drainage concerns are
dealt with during final site plan review. He said he was satisfied there are sufficient
options for dealing with the sewage until public utilities become available. He said he
trusted the Health Department would require that everything is done properly and on
time.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP-96-49 for
Tandem School, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The new facility (gymnasium/field house) will be located approximately as shown
on the attached preliminary site plan dated 11/11/96, revised 12/10/96 and initialled
RAIL (Attachment A).
2. The new facility shall be connected to public water and sewer prior to occupancy if
water and sewer is reasonably available to the property prior to building completion or
within 3 months after water and sewer lines become reasonably available to the
property if they are not reasonably available prior to building completion. For
purposes of this condition, the term "reasonably available" refers to the planned
extension of water and sewer lines to a point south of the new connector road from
Avon Street to Route 20, all of which is intended to be accomplished with the
construction of Monticello High School, upon acceptance of those lines by the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Authority for temporary sewage disposal is not
implied in this condition. Such authority would need to be granted by the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors upon advice of the Virginia Department of Health.
3. Total school enrollment and on -site staffing shall be limited to 200 persons.
4. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a
new special use permit.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle commented: "I still fail to see what the rush is on this. It seems to me
that the school would be better served, rather than putting money into temporary
measures that may or may not be satisfactory --they would be better off to wait a year
until public water and sewer is available. So I can't support this at this time."
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting
vote.
ls5 r
1-7-97 19
SP-96-43 Nancy Porritt, Piney Mountain Preschool and Children's Cottage -
Proposal to establish a private pre-school to serve 6-9 children on 2.7 acres.
Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 12A, is located on the east side of Route
29 North, across form GE Fanuc in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is
zoned RA, Rural Areas and is not within a designated Development Area. Deferred
from the December 17, 1996 Commission Meeting.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Answers to Commission questions included the following:
--Staff does not know the cost of a 100-foot taper lane.
--The taper lane would not serve the restaurant on adjacent property.
--VDOT will require a 30-foot wide entrance at the existing right-of-way line.
--VDOT has said the taper will fit within the existing shoulder, but the base of
the shoulder may have to be improved. Most of the work which will have to be done
will be to provide the commercial entrance, but the taper will add considerable
expense. A taper will allow vehicles to slow down and get partially off the highway
before reaching the entrance.
The applicant, Ms. Nancy Porritt, addressed the Commission. She was accompanied
by her mother, Geri Porritt, owner of the property. Mrs. Porritt said she had spoken
with a contractor about the cost of constructing the taper. She was told it will be a
minimum of $5,000. The contractor questioned the reason for the taper if it will not
get a vehicle off the highway. The contractor also questioned the need for a
commercial entrance for so small an operation. Mrs. Porritt said the driveway can be
upgraded without expanding it to 30-feet wide. She said she could "cut that corner off,
coming off 29, with possibly a 50-foot (sentence unfinished). That's on the northbound
side. Most of this 50 feet to the southbound side --to bring that taper in from the
southbound side. Because the biggest problem getting in right now is that corner,
where the mailbox is. If we go with VDOT's recommendations, we're talking about
removal of the guardrail and the 16 degree incline down to the... (part of sentence could
not be understood), plus running head on into this junction box with Centel which serves
GE, North Pines and the whole area and was just upgraded to fiber optic under 29. If
we swing this driveway to the north to get the 30-foot entrance, all the cedar trees on
both sides of the driveway would have to be cut. I don't want that to happen because
the trees serve as a buffer to road noise and dirt." Both Ms. Porritt and her mother
stressed the preschool will only have 6-9 children, so there will be very little traffic.
Vehicles trips will be staggered from noon through 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Porritt said most of
the expense (the $5,000) is related to having to fill in the low area and the drainpipe
will have to be extended. Ms. Porritt pointed out that the construction of a taper to
serve her site could create a serious hazard for the restaurant customers because it
will create the illusion that it serves the restaurant also. Vehicles will move onto the
taper only to find that it ends before the restaurant, so they will have to re-enter Rt.
29. Mrs. Porritt did not have an estimate on the relocation of the fiber optics box.
She said if that becomes necessary she will have to abandon the plan for the
preschool.
1-7-97 20
Mr. Keeler said that though VDOT has recommended the construction of a commercial
entrance, VDOT has taken the position in the past that "if it's an existing entrance they
can't do anything." "If the County requires them to get a permit, VDOT will require the
commercial entrance, but they are recommending that the commercial entrance be
augmented with the taper."
Noting that Mr. Keeler had been present when VDOT was looking at the site, Mrs.
Porritt asked Mr. Keeler if he thought her proposal would work. Mr. Keeler said he
would not want to offer an opinion until VDOT has considered what she is proposing.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out to the applicant that even though she may feel her plan is
acceptable, if she has to do work in VDOT's right-of-way, then "you have to play by
their rules," and even though the Planning Commission might feel her proposal is
acceptable, VDOT might not be willing to issue the permit. He added, however, the
Board of Supervisors could decide not to include a condition requiring a commercial
entrance and taper lane, and, in that case, VDOT could not require improvements.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested a deferral to allow time for VDOT to consider Mrs. Porritt's
proposed changes to the entrance. (Mr. Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, suggested she
submit her plan to the County Engineering Department first. If they can support her
proposal she will have a stronger case before VDOT.)
Mrs. Porritt said when she had spoken to VDOT (Mr. Kesterson), before even
submitting the request for a special permit, he had not mentioned a taper lane.
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP-96-43 for Nancy
Porritt, be deferred to January 28, 1997.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 96-22 RHH Development Corporation - Petition to rezone approximately 1.691
acres from R-4, Residential to CO, Commercial Office and approximately 2.774 acres
from C-1 Commercial to CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map
61 W2, Parcels 45, 46 and 47 are located on the north side of Whitewood
Road/Greenbrier Drive adjacent to Wynridge and Minor Hill subdivisions in the Rio
Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential in
Neighborhood One.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request
"because the unfavorable aspects outweigh the favorable aspects." (See staff report
dated January 7,1997, a copy of which is filed with these minutes.) Ms. Scala pointed
out that the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend this property for commercial
/5�
M
1-7-97 21
uses and though the Plan recognized that commercial zoned land is in this location,
"expansion of commercial uses was not contemplated." Staff answers to Commission
questions included the following-
--The drawings on display show what could be placed on the property. There is
no way to ensure that what is placed on the property would be as depicted in the
drawings.
--if this proposal is denied, the pipestem could not be built on because it is too
narrow, "but it would have an impact on setbacks on the C1 properties because it is
zoned R4." Six or seven units could be placed on the R4 property. The pipestem
could possibly be used for access to the commercial properties, but it could not be
used for parking.
--It was anticipated in the Comp Plan that the existing C1 zoning in this area
would be developed in C1 uses, but because of the residential land use designation,
no expansion of that C1 zoning was anticipated.
--When considering expansion of commercial areas not designated in the Comp
Plan-- in order to support the expansion --staff would want to determine the expansion
would be creating a better situation than would result if it were to develop under the
property's existing zoning. "Without proffers, we don't have that here. It's not that a
small expansion has been out of the question, it has just been with the assurance we
know what we are getting." (Cilimberg) "CO is a less intensive zoning than the
existing zoning. That is a positive in terms of the Comprehensive Plan." (Benish)
The applicant, Mr. Bob Hauser, addressed the Commission. He read a lengthy
statement which described his proposal and also listed items he was willing to address
through proffers. His statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment B.
Additional comments and answers to specific Commission questions included the
following:
--"I am prepared to offer this plan --the architecture, the lighting. I don't know
the specifics.... V\fithout the zoning, I did not feel comfortable (preparing a site plan)."
--A three-story apartment building (which could possibly be placed on this site
with the current zoning), would not be a welcome addition to the existing residential
neighborhood. Mr. Hauser felt this plan would be preferable and would be compatible
with the adjacent neighborhood.
--All three parcels total 4 acres. The residential portion of the property is 1.6
acres. If this proposal is denied, "we can cram 8 or 9 townhouses" on the site.
--This rezoning would allow the development which takes place to remain one-
story high because "I don't have to cram every single square foot with a building. I
can try to maintain some buffer areas."
--VDOT has said traffic increase, with this change, would be "negligible, given
the existing C1 zoning."
--The applicant held a meeting with adjacent owners. (30 invitations were sent.
8 residents attending the meeting.)
Public comment was invited.
%S4
OR
1-7-97 22
The following residents of adjacent neighborhoods addressed the Commission and
expressed opposition to the proposed change: Bruce Gibson (Minor Ridge); Brian
DeVore (Minor Ridge); Marjorie Maupin Paul (Minor Ridge); Bonnie Taylor (Westfield
Road); and Michael Moeller. Their reasons for opposition included the following:
--Will increase existing drainage problems.
--Will decrease adjoining property values.
--Additional commercial development is not needed but more reasonably priced
housing is needed.
--The County needs to uphold the Comprehensive Plan recommendation.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, read a statement
of opposition to the request. (Attachment C to these minutes.)
Mr. Hauser was allowed final comments. Addressing the comment that there is a
surplus of office space in the County, he said the office space market is very good at
the present time with "less than 3% office space vacancy in the north 29 corridor,
which is, effectively, fully occupied." Regarding the issue of developing the property
with affordable housing, he stated: "Affordable housing ... cannot be generated on
property that has a value of $500,000 and has a yield of 20 homes. I can't pay
$25,000/lot acquisition and develop it and create anything close to affordable. I paid
less than 1/2 that at DunLora and I developed the lots into $60,000 lots."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Based on the applicant's representation during his comments that he was willing to
proffer those items listed in his statement and the plan on display, Mr. Tice asked if
staffs recommendation had changed. Ms. Scala said she was not prepared to answer
that question. Mr. Benish said though Mr. Hauser's statements did touch on a
number of staffs concerns, staff would want to look at written proffers before giving a
final position.
Mr. Tice, after having heard the neighbor's concerns, said: " I feel we are close to a
situation in which the net result of this could be considerably better than what the
existing zoning allows. But I would not want to move forward until staff has had time
to look at the proffers." He suggested a deferral would allow staff and the applicant
time to meet so that could evaluate what is being offered.
Mr. Nitchmann said if he were an adjacent property owner, he would find this proposal
more acceptable than what might occur on the property which is already zoned
commercial (2.4 acres of this proposal) by right, e.g. service stations, nurseries,
libraries, laundries, lodges, churches, retail, sporting goods stores, department stores.
Special permits could allow an even greater variety of uses including a fast food
restaurant. He said he could support a deferral. He recommended that the neighbors
read pages 145, 146 and 147 of the Zoning Ordinance to see all the uses that could
go on the property by -right.
`S-%
1-7-97
23
Mr. Finley said he agreed with both Commissioners Tice and Nitchmann. He
thought the applicant's proposal would have less impact than would either Residential
or C1 development. He said he could support a deferral.
Mr. Dotson said this was a difficult issue because it is a question of siding with the
Comp Plan recommendation or, asking "how realistic is that given the commercial, C1
zoning that is already on the land and given the value of the land." He said he did not
think it is realistic to think it will develop residentially. He concluded: "I think it comes
down to two questions --whether it should be developed as CO or C1--my feeling is it
is much better off as CO --and then how should it be developed --and this plan starts to
show some of the ways it could be developed. On the whether question I think it
should be CO. On the how question, I would like to hear more ideas from the
neighbors and perhaps the developer can get together with the neighbors."
Ms. Huckle said if the applicant is willing the offer the design and the plan, to the
satisfaction of staff, she would find this proposal more acceptable to adjacent
residential neighborhoods than an apartment complex would be. She said she could
support a deferral.
Ms. Washington said she could support a deferral because it would give some of the
neighbors who have not yet met with the applicant the opportunity to do so. (Mr.
Hauser said he had no objection to meeting with neighbors in an effort to allay their
concerns.)
Mr. Loewenstein said a deferral seemed in order.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 96-22 for RHH
Development be deferred to January 28, 1997.
The motion passed unanimously.
Staff reminded the applicant that offers must be submitted in writing and the County
Attorney needs time to review those proffers prior to the next hearing.
SDP 96-112 River Run Phase 4 Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 50
townhouses with associated parking on a 13.4 acre portion of the River Run
Residential Development. Property, described as Tax Map 62D1, Parcel 1 (part), is
within the River Run Residential Development on the north side of Rio Road, just west
of Pen Park, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned R-6
Residential, with proffers and is designated for Urban Density Residential development
in Urban Neighborhood 2.
`'�•r Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
�s�
cm
1-7-97
24
The applicant was represented by Kurt Gloeckner. He said this is the last phase of
River Run, even though it is numbered Phase 4. (5, 6 and 7 have already been
completed.) 412 units were approved 15 years ago and these are the last 50. (He
noted that one section of townhouses in section 5 have not yet been built because
they are waiting for the sewer line to be constructed which will serve Phase 4.)
Mr. Sterling Williamson, developer of the property, was present and offered to answer
questions.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Leo Casey, Mr. Frank Beddow and Mr. Charles Morrell, residents of River Run,
expressed opposition to the proposal. Mr. Casey questioned the way the density
calculations were made. Mr. Morrell was concerned that runoff problems he is
experiencing in his yard will be made worse by this development. He also questioned
whether there would be space for parking for these new units. Mr. Beddow expressed
concerns about additional traffic on Rio Road. He stressed that a traffic light is
needed. (Mr. Tice pointed out that the Meadowcreek Parkway will relieve much of the
traffic congestion on Rio Road.)
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
At Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Kelsey said, during plan review, he will look into the
drainage problem described by Mr. Morrell.
In response to Mr.Tice's questions about a water impact assessment, Mr. Kelsey said
the Water Resources Manager has expressed concern about the runoff draining
directly through the WRPA buffer area to the river. Staff will be exploring options for
"getting the water to spread out as it goes through the buffer area."
Mr. Tice said staffs recommendation on this request was in order.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the River Run Phase 4
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for
signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained.
The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Planning Department approval of landscape plan and all proposed street
names.
b. Building Code and Zoning Services approval of proof of recordation for land
dedication to Albemarle County for the Greenbelt.
c. Engineering Department approval of
i. An erosion control plan;
/�`9
1-7-97 25
ii. Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact
Assessment for any encroachments in the WRPA buffer;
iii. Final grading and drainage plans and computations. This will
include adequate channel computations for releasing drainage into
the Rivanna River;
iv. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of any right-of-way
improvements;
V. Strip Rt. 768 for lift turn accommodations to Rt. 1175 (200 foot full
width and 100 foot taper).
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
i. Water and sewer plans;
ii. Indication of 20-foot wide vehicular access easements from the
ends of Roads A, B, C to the sewer easements.
iii. Verification that required fire flows can be obtained.
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m., Wednesday
morning, January 8th.
W
E"
rA
/( O