HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 25 1997 PC Minutes3-25-97
Cn
MARCH 25, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March
25, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr.
William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson;
and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. John
Shepherd, Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering;
and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of March 11, 1997, were unanimously approved as amended. (Ms. Huckle
was not present for the approval action of the minutes. She made corrections at the
end of the meeting. No opposition was expressed to her corrections.)
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP 96-043 Fairfield Inn Site Plan - Proposal to modify the slope provisions to Section
4.12.6.3b of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the slope of the parking lot.
The proposed slope is approximately 4%.
SDP 96-114 Mallside Forest Site Plan - Proposal to modify the slope provisions of
section 4.12.6.3b of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in the slope of the
parking lot. The proposed slope is approximately 4%.
Mr. Fritz briefly summarized the two requests. Staff recommended approval of both
modifications.
Ms. Huckle asked if the velocity of the runoff would be greater as a result of the
increase in slope. Mr. Kelsey said there will be little difference because the difference
between 2% and 5% "isn't all that great." Mr. Kelsey said also that the Design Review
Council prefers a slope of 5% in any direction. That standard is currently used by the
City and the Engineering Department would support a change in the Zoning Ordinance
to reflect that standard.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finely seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
M
2
3-25-97
SUB 97-011 Trogden Final Plat - Proposal to create one 2.317 acre lot. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 31 Q, is located at the end of Milford Road which
intersects Earlysville Road approximately 1 mile north of the intersection with
Woodlands Road. This property, containing 8.928 acres, is zoned Rural Areas in the
Rio Magisterial District. The lots will be served by Milford Road, an existing public
road.
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. The report explained that the plat which
created Lake Hill Subdivision (signed 1/28/79), carried the note No further division of
any lot shown on this plat without Planning Commission approval." Thus, it was staffs
determination that this division required either Commission approval, or Commission
relief from this condition. If the Commission grants relief from the condition, staff can
then approve the final plat administratively, subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle asked if staff had visited the site. Mr. Shepherd responded negatively.
Ms. Huckle asked if staff knew why this notation had been placed on the plat. Mr.
Shepherd said it was his understanding that this was a note which was routinely
placed on plats at that time because the administrative approval process was not in
effect. (Mr. Cilimberg later added that the overhaul of the Zoning Ordinance which
had taken place in 1980 had eliminated the need for this type of note.) Ms. Huckle
said she had received a call from a resident of the subdivision who told her the Board
had, prior to this note being placed on the plat, refused the subdivision of this property
into three lots because of the steepness of the slopes. She noted that this property
slopes down to the reservoir. Mr. Shepherd said he believed the person was referring
to a proposal to divide another lot in Lake Hills, which was not actually disapproved,
but was withdrawn after a lengthy process. He said that was not the parcel under
consideration at this time. Ms. Huckle pointed out that the reservoir was built in
1964, so that may have had some bearing on the requirement for this note. After
having checked the file, Mr. Shepherd said "there is no history of an effort to divide
the lot in question before." There was, in 1979, a proposal to re -configure lot 10 and
to create three lots out of lots 2 and 3. The Commission approved the re-
configuration of lot 10, but denied the creation of the additional lot between lots 2 and
3. That denial was appealed to the Board, but was withdrawn prior to Board action.
(The re -configuration of lot 10 adjusted the common boundary between lots 2 and 3,
but did not create another lot.) He did not know why the Commission had denied the
additional lot, but he said there had been a lot of opposition to the request.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in addition to the Zoning Ordinance provisions requiring buffers
on those properties which adjoin the reservoir, the Runoff Control Ordinance deals
with where building sites can be located, amount of grading and location of septic
systems. Ms. Huckle passed among the Commission photographs of developed
properties on the reservoir. She said: "You can see the vegetative buffers, but you
have to look pretty hard and have a good imagination." Mr. Cilimberg asked Ms.
Huckle if she knew when these lots had been created and the homes built. He again
""�"' pointed
3-25-97
3
that the buffer requirements did not exist until 1980. Ms. Huckle said the buffer
requirements exist now and "these things haven't ever been done." She concluded:
"You can have all the ordinances in the world, but if they aren't enforced and the
people who live there are not concerned, it isn't going to help any."
Ms. Huckle said the person who had called her had been told by staff that "this was a
foregone conclusion," so he was not present at the meeting. Ms. Huckle said there is
certain to be runoff into the reservoir during the development of any of these adjoining
lots. She said she would have no opposition to the request if it were someplace else,
but she said: "I wonder if it's wise of us to approve something that has the potential to
do even more damage to that poor reservoir."
In response to Mr. Dotson's questions, Mr. Shepherd said these lots will be served by
well and septic and Health Department approval will, of course, be required. It has
been established that both lots have 30,000 square feet, less than 25%, building
sites. He said the proposal meets the Ordinance provisions for a subdivision, and that
is the basis for staffs recommendation.
The applicants, James and Janice Trogden, addressed the Commission. Ms. Trogden
answered Ms. Huckle's questions about the location of their driveway and other
driveways. Mr. Trogden estimated the grade of the house site to be 2%. The
Trogdens said they have no plans to develop the remainder of the property at this
time. Mr. Trogden said the rest of the property may be too steep to develop. Ms.
Trogden assured the Commission that they would not do anything to damage the
reservoir.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein said he could not identify any grounds for disapproving the request.
Mr. Kamptner explained that approval of a plat is a ministerial act and approval is
required if it meets the provision of the Ordinances. To deny the request, the
Commission must identify the applicable provision of the Ordinance which the plat
does not satisfy.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Commission
grant relief from the previous condition requiring Commission approval of the final site
plan, and that staff be granted administrative approval of the final plat, subject to the
following conditions:
The final plat shall not be submitted for signature, nor shall it be signed until the
following conditions are met:
1. Health Department approval of Lot A and the residue.
M
Rn
CM
3-25-97 4
2. Planning staff approval of the maintenance agreement.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson asked staff to describe those Ordinance provisions which will protect the
reservoir in subdivisions of this kind. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a 200 foot building
and septic setback which is not to be infringed upon. Mr. Shepherd added that the
Water Resources Manager had reviewed this plat and he recommended that the plat
show the location of the floodplain and the 200 foot setback. It is required that these
items be reflected on the plat, as they have been here. Mr. Kelsey said the Runoff
Control Ordinance requires that anything adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir have a
200 foot building and septic setback from the 100-year floodplain of the Reservoir.
Any other places in a runoff control area are required to have a 100-foot building and
septic setback from the edge of any other streams or bodies of water. Also, the Water
Resources Protection Ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer along the edge of a "blue
line stream or any wetlands that are a part of that body of water. Also, when the
building permit is reviewed for the residential development, anything that is over 5%
will require a runoff control permit. The critical slopes provisions also help protect the
reservoir because they require that there be an adequate building site and drainfield
site be achievable on less that 25% slopes. Mr. Dotson noted that driveways are
exempt from the critical slopes provisions. He asked Mr. Kelsey if the driveway will be
located in any areas of 25% slope. Not being familiar with the site, Mr. Kelsey was
unable to answer this question.
Ms. Huckle said she was very concerned about the fact that staff has not visited the
site, nor are they familiar with a topographical map of the site. She favored a deferral
until staff, and other Commissioners, could visit the site.
Ms. Trogden interjected that the existing driveway will serve this site to a large degree.
Mr. Shepherd said the surveyor has stated that this driveway will provide reasonable
access, which is, by Ordinance, "the criteria by which all these plats that are
administratively reviewed under Section 18.13, are reviewed by." He concluded: "So
this is a standard and thorough review where these things have been addressed."
The previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle
casting the dissenting vote. (Mr. Dotson said his vote for approval was made
"reluctantly.")
ZMA 96-25 River Heights Associates Limited - Proposal to amend the existing proffers
of ZMA 95-17 to eliminate the requirement of a connection between the mobile home
sales area on Route 29 and the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. Property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A, is located on the west side of Route
29 just south of its intersection with Timberwood Blvd. This site is located in the
3-25-97
5
Community of Hollymead and is recommended for Regional Service. Deferred from
March 11, 1997 Commission Meeting.
This item was deferred by the Commission on March 11th in order for staff to more
specifically define the design requirements for the road. Mr. Kelsey said staff had
researched "what has been done in the past" and determined that this type of road
"ranges from 12 to 14 feet wide, has a gravel surface with 6 inches of stone, a 4-foot
shoulder on either side and, if a ditch is required, 4 feet to the center line of the ditch."
He concluded: "We would not require anything more than that. The turning
movements and vertical criteria necessary to pull a trailer will have more control over
what that road looks like than what our particular design standard would be. On the
straighter sections they can probably use this, but to pull a trailer around the corners,
it will probably take a larger curve and possibly a widening of some of the gravel
surfaces to make sure there is room for the tires." For the stream crossing, he said
these roads do not typically cross streams, but, typically, a ten-year storm standard
would be required for the stream crossing.
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission. He said he still does
not have much information. He said he had just received a call from staff "this
afternoon" though he had been trying to get an answer since the last Commission
meeting. He said he had been told 14 feet, but he just now heard Mr. Kelsey say 12
feet might be acceptable. Also, he had been told "we would have to meet slopes, but
tonight I hear we don't have to meet slopes." He concluded: "So I don't really know
where we are. He again said it is going to be a very expensive road, "any way we do
it," but it is going to have little use. He estimated the road would only be used a total
of "10 or 12 times in its life."
Mr. Dotson reminded Mr. Wood he had said, at the March 11th meeting, that if the
standards for the road were "minimal" he would not seek to have it eliminated from the
proffers. Given the fact that Mr. Kelsey had described a "minimal" road, Mr. Dotson
asked Mr. Wood if his previous statement is still accurate. Mr. Wood responded:
"That's right, but I haven't heard --I heard 14 ft. with 6 inches of stone --and if that is the
criteria, that is not a minimal road. We have what I consider a minimal road going
through there now that we would throw a little gravel on. Six inches of gravel is a
base for a State road." He said the existing road could be used if it was widened a
little and very little cut would be required.
In answer to Mr. Dotson's questions, Mr. Wood said the wheels on a trailer are 7 feet
apart, and the unit itself may be up to 16 feet wide. He confirmed that he believed
the units could be hauled on a much narrower road by just letting it overhang onto the
shoulders.
Mr. Wood hoped the Commission would base its decision on the "value and cost
benefit of the road and whether or not it is really addressing a safety issue." He felt
,_;23 c
09
3-25-97 6
the Commission's treatment of this request was a "punishment," i.e. "you still don't
want it, and we'll see if this will stop it." He concluded: "In that respect, I think it will."
He did not think the road would be of any benefit to anyone, but it will add an expense
to this development which will result in an additional cost to each lot in the mobile
home park. As he had stated at the previous meeting, Mr. Wood pointed out that
units will not be sold from this site.
Mr. Wood confirmed that he understands an overall plan for the development of the
remainder of the commercial property must be submitted before any further approvals
are given. He said: "That is still understood and is acceptable."
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to state, "more precisely," the required standards for the
road. Mr. Kelsey responded: "In order for this road to serve as emergency
access ... under adverse conditions, we have tried to have some sort of sustainable
surface. We have used in the past, a gravel surface, 6 inches deep, average width
between 12 and 14 feet wide, 4-foot wide shoulders on both sides. The crown surface
on the gravel road would have to be at least 1/2 inch per foot.... Places where you
have a ditch section would have to be 4 feet to the center line of the ditch. A
maximum is 2:1 side slopes for any cut and fill slopes. We have typically used 18%
maximum grade on the roadway. For the vertical curvature, since typically we are
looking at such a low design speed on a road that is being used as emergency access
we typically haven't used any type of vertical criteria. For horizontal criteria, just as
long as it's passable by an emergency -sized vehicle. The speed on the road is
extremely low, so whatever the minimum radius would be for an emergency -sized
vehicle. I don't have that number off the top of my head. We can provide that if the
applicant needs it."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the emergency road at Mill Creek meets those standards. Mr.
Kelsey responded affirmatively. He said the same type road in DunLora meets these
standards. Mr. Nitchmann asked about the road in the Fontaine Research Park. Mr.
Kelsey did not respond to this question.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Wood if the standards had now been clarified. Mr. Wood
responded: "Yes --which takes it into a very expensive road.... We would have cuts
of at least 20 feet to achieve that. This is not going to be a path through the woods."
Mr. Dotson said the minutes of previous meetings reflect, "perhaps as an after
thought, it was recognized this road could serve some emergency access purposes."
However, he said it was his recollection of earlier discussions that it was in the spirit
of a road capable of conveying a mobile home from the sales area to the mobile home
park to the west." He asked Mr. Kamptner if it would be possible for the Commission
to add a narrative standard to that effect and to leave the details of how that standard
is achieved to be worked out later, i.e. "something more in keeping with what the
,? 31
Em
3-25-97
applicant had in mind and something less than a road intended to be an emergency
access road."
Mr. Kamptner said the proffers presented by Mr. Wood at various times do specify that
emergency access is one of the purposes. So, for zoning purposes, it was never
simply to be a road for transporting mobile homes. It was always, as proffered, to be
also an emergency road. Interpretation of the proffers made several years ago is the
responsibility of the Zoning Administrator. However, any Commission discussion
about proffers assists the Zoning Administrator in interpreting the proffers.
Mr. Wood pointed out that neither staff, nor the applicant, had been aware that there
is an emergency vehicle road standard. He said he had no problem with an
emergency vehicle using the road. But during site review, the issue had arisen that
the road must be built to this emergency vehicle standard. He said he was not trying
to avoid building the road as he had originally envisioned, but that vision had not
included building it to an emergency vehicle standard.
Ms. Huckle said she felt the applicant had made the offer to allow the road to be used
for emergency vehicles as incentive for the County to approve the mobile home sales
use.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed, but, as Mr. Dotson had stated previously, the emergency
usage was sort of an after thought. He pointed out that Mr. Wood was trying to
provide affordable housing against a lot of opposition. At those times, an applicant
may almost "promise anything." It is unfortunate that it was not known at that time
how the design of the road would be impacted by the addition of emergency vehicles.
He said he had not envisioned any more than some minor improvements to the
existing road, i.e. some bushhogging, and a culvert across the creek." He said this
road will not keep the trailers off Airport Road or Rt. 606. He thought the question of
how much the road will actually be used is important and if it is going to be used as
little as indicated by the applicant, then "we're just asking the applicant to waste a lot
of money." He concluded: "If the road can be improved a little to allow trailers to
pass, then I think we can ask him to do that. Maybe ask him in a different way than
saying it has to have 6 inches of gravel, 14 feet wide."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there is any Ordinance requirement that emergency access
must be provided on this road or on some road. Mr. Fritz said there is a provision in
the Ordinance which says that "for developments of 50 lots or more a secondary form
of access should be provided where reasonably practicable, and this would provide
that secondary form of access (to the mobile home park)."
Mr. Huckle pointed out there will be over 200 units in this development. She was
concerned about the fact that the main entrance to the trailer park is only a few
,--q 3A
M
3-25-97 8
hundred feet from the airport runway. She said it would be tragic if there should be an
airport accident which would result in the blockage of this entrance.
Mr. Nitchmann raised the question of what will happen to the road after the mobile
homes sales use is discontinued. Mr. Finley added the additional question of what will
happen if the cost of the road is prohibitive and the applicant does not build it and
"just backs out." Mr. Fritz said the road is not a requirement for the mobile home
park. As to what may happen if the road is built and the mobile home sales then
ceases, Mr. Fritz said the use of the property is limited to the auto sales which
currently exists on the site, and the mobile home sales. Another rezoning action
would be required to modify the existing proffers and add additional uses. Staffs
assumption is that such a rezoning action would be part of a larger plan of
development and a road connecting the mobile home park to a secondary access
would be part of a larger plan of commercial development for the west side of Rt. 29
between Forest Lakes and Hollymead.
Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Is this proffer tied to the sale of mobile homes on this site? If
I don't sell mobile homes there, then I don't have to put the road in?" Mr. Fritz
responded: "Correct." Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "So if I decide to go one block up
the road and sell my mobile homes, then I don't have to put the road in." Mr. Fritz
responded: "On another piece of property that is not subject to this proffer, that is
correct."
Mr. Finley pointed out that it is in the applicant's best interest to construct a road that
will allow him to move the mobile homes in an acceptable manner so as not to incur
the liability that would result if there is damage to either the mobile home or the
property over which the road crosses. He said, "If he thinks he can get up and down
the grades and cross the creek with what he's got, it seems like that is his concern,
provided we don't put the second entrance into the trailer park."
Mr. Nitchmann said if he had realized this road could add $1,500 to every lot in the
mobile home park, he would not have supported the emergency vehicle usage of the
road. He recalled affordable housing had been an important community issue at that
time and it was that need which was the basis for the approval of this development.
Ms. Huckle said she understood the lots would be rented rather than sold. Mr.
Nitchmann said someone other than the developer is going to ultimately absorb the
cost.
Mr. Loewenstein said there is also the question of whether or not the consumer is
being adequately protected if we fail to consider the need for emergency access on
the site. He said there is a greater likelihood of problems in areas of denser housing.
,,Jg-3
3-25-97 9
., MCITICIN: Mc Wn--hinnton mnvari KAr hlitrhmonn ccrnnriAri that 7RA,A 96-25 for
River Heights Associates Limited, to amend the existing proffers of ZMA 95-17 to
173
GI1111111QtG LIIc IGL.�UI1 VI I IVI IIL VI G1 tiVllI IGLrLIVI I ✓GLYVGGII LI IV III IIV✓i1G IIVIIIG sales a] -VII1 1\L.
29 and the Forest Snrinas Mobile Home Park; he recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval.
nisc! lssinn-
Mr Tires cairi ha mini dri nhctain frnm tho antes harai mp hp hart heron Ph, -ant from the
March 11 th public hearing.
The motion for approval passed (4:2:1) with Commissioners Hinkle and I np emstein
voting no, and Commissioner Tice abstaining.
ZMA 96-27 Western Ridae Business Park - Proposal to rezone 1.5 acres from LI,
Light Industry to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 56,
Parrp_.Is 88, 89, 90 and 90A is Inrated on the_. smith side_. of Rnute ion annrnximately
1.5 miles west of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection at Mechum's River in the
V/ftjitP Hall Manictorial Dictrirt. This cite is inratori in tho rommr Inity of rrn7ot anrt is
recommended for Industrial Service.
Mr Fritz presented the staff report. Staff rerommended denial for the following
reasons:
--C,ornrnerni,ql i go- of this cite is not recommended by the mm�rehanciVp Pinn
The intent of the Plan appears to be to limit commercial development to downtown
V1 VLVL.
--1 IcQ of this city for a r�av carp renter rn! ilri nnnflirt with nntantial inchistrinl
development of adjacent areas.
Thn i+n hnn nn ^hnra—+grin+;nn elm nn+ hn Innrl
-- I I IV JILG I IQJ I IV GI IGIIGLGI IJLIW VVI IIGI I II IVILrVLG LI IQL L11G JILG G\Ju,G I IVL ✓G UJGV
for an industrial use consistent with the existing zoning
Mr_ Frith nacsari ni it r_.nniac of a StatgmPnt ofcinnnrwhich rnntin -d7 i�ntiraa-
Mr Fritz said an poplication for a comprehensive elan amendment; to chance the
designation of this property to Neighborhood Commercial, has been filed by the
annlirant Mr Cilimherc Cai(t Staffs review of the rmmnrPhencive plan amp_ricimp_.nt
may include a larger area than just that which is a part of this rezoning request.
Mr. FinlPv ackPtl staff to e)(nlain the rtiffergnr_ons hetween this rimm e0 and the Penhnriv
School which was recently approved in Mill Creek. Mr. Fritz said the Peabody School
ir• n nnhnn! nntd +h'r• it+ �.c A: — .^nrn AI�n +hn Dpe knrlel Cnhnnl �i+n ..<nr. Ilirerllt+rinl
IJ G JVIIVVI CAI IV LI IIJ IJ G VGr GG/G• 111JV, LI IV I GG1✓VLJr \JGI IVV/ JILG YYGJ II IV4JLI IUI,
within a Planned Unit Development;" whereas this site is "straight Ll." He noted,
however, that "industrial designation equates to LI zoning within the PUD." Mr.
3-25-97 10
Cilimberg added that both the Crozet Community Plan and the Crozet Growth Area
description in the Comp Plan emphasize that downtown Crozet is to be the
commercial center and is to be promoted for commercial development, as opposed to
satellite areas away from downtown. He felt this was a significant difference in the
two requests.
Ms. Huckle was puzzled by the fact that "some of the people have hired someone who
was to go out and recruit industry," but, at the same time, the Planning Commission
seems to be getting rid of the already zoned industrial land.
Mr. Dotson asked if there had been any consideration given to a zoning text
amendment to add day care as a use in the industrial district, similar to health care
uses. Mr. Fritz said that had not been a part of this application, but "supplemental
(subordinate) commercial was added as part of the previous Comp Plan review to
acknowledge that in these larger scale industrial developments, like the North Fork
Business Park, it is reasonable to assume that putting some support commercial uses
within large scale industrial development can have some public good...." Mr.
Cilimberg said medical type uses are viewed differently than day care type uses.
Medical uses are not classified as a subordinate or supporting use. Rather they are
classified as an office use, which is an allowable by -right use in the industrial district.
In that instance, a commercial -like facility actually qualifies as an office use in the
Zoning Ordinance. The allowance for day care and some of the other commercial
uses that can occur in industrial areas is as a percentage of total under another
section in the ordinance, as a supporting use by special use permit." Staff had not
pursued that approach because the percentages are so low that the result would not
have been meaningful for this application.
Mr. Dotson said: "But another possible approach would be for a zoning text
amendment." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "For either a greater percentage of area for
allowable support or some other language for how 'supporting' is determined." Mr.
Dotson suggested: Or simply say day care is an allowed use just as offices are an
allowed use." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "That would be a lot more of a stretch.
That's much less likely, but is another way to look at it."
Staff answers to additional Commission questions:
--Staff has no way to calculate need for day care.
--The site borders the railroad track.
--The property on which the medical offices are located is zoned Industrial.
--The rezoning request is for 1.5 acres. A Comp Plan Amendment would
include the property on both sides of the road (approximately 10 acres).
Ms. Huckle questioned whether this would be an acceptable environment for small
children given its close proximity to the railroad track, the usage of which is increasing.
M
3-25-57
The applicant was represented by Ms. ICatliryr 'v'L'omaik. Her comments and answers
to Commission questions included the following:
--A building of approximately 6,000 square feet is planned. It will serve 120
children from infants to age 4. 14 employees are envisioned. This is similar to the
Mill Creek day care facility.
--This area is going to be experiencing a great deal of growth, much of which
will be young families. Presently, there are no day care centers listed in the phone
book yellow pages for this area.
--Page 93 of the Plan "should be read, just as stated, to be confined to Rt. 250.
If the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to focus development towards
downtown, you can understand that Rt. 250 doesn't funnel people downtown. But
commercial development on Rt. 240 does aim people towards the downtown area. It
is on the way to downtown, and on the way back."
--Approval of this use will provide for increased separation of industrial and
residential areas.
--This site is very safe. There is a significant elevation difference between the
railroad track and this site.
--The site is not appropriate for industrial or warehousing uses, but it is
appropriate for a use that will support the surrounding residential area.
--The applicant will not be the operator of the day care facility. Negotiations are
underway but are not final at this point.
-"Western Ridge Business Park", the label on the map, is "what we (the
applicant) have called this area up front." Covenants have been recorded and there
are restrictions on what can be done there. It is presently zoned LI and could be
developed as such.
--She did not know if any other sites in or near Crozet have been considered
for this use. (Mr. Fritz pointed to the location --on parcel 67--of a previous proposal for
a day care center.)
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant would object to constructing a fence on the
property line adjacent to the railroad track. Ms. Womack said she did not have the
authority to agree to such a condition. She again stressed the difference in elevation.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a fence could be required as a part of the site plan
review process.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the applicant would find it a hardship to wait for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process on the whole area. Ms. Womack said a
delay would create a hardship because the need exists now for a day care center.
She said if the Commission feels it is an appropriate use then that decision should be
made without the requirement that the applicant "go through a process just for the
sake of going through that process."
Public comment was invited.
rm
3-25-97 12
... Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, expressed opposition to the request. Though he
agreed there is a need for day care in Crozet, he said he would like to see the request
approved under a special use permit, or as a supporting use under LI zoning. If
approval is granted aside from either of those approaches, he said "I would like, as a
member of the Crozet Planning Committee, to hear some reassurance from the
Commission that this is not an acquiescence of the industrial zoning on the remaining
parcels and that there is a commitment, on the part of the Planning Commission, not
only to the people of Crozet, but to the Crozet Community Plan in its call for
downtown Crozet to be the commercial center of Crozet. " He pointed out that the
applicant has already received a rezoning of part of the industrial acreage from
industrial to residential. In planning for future school needs, he said the Crozet
Committee has asked the County to consider providing preschool, similar to before
and after -school programs.
Ms. Lisa Harmon, an Earlysville resident, urged the Commission to consider the
recommendations of the Crozet Community Plan. She stressed how much citizen
time when into the development of that plan and said the Planning Commission is now
the Guardian of the plan. She suggested that the request be considered through a
special permit process.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle said she was shocked that small children would be used as a "buffer
between industrial and residential land." She said this site is inappropriate for infants
and small children.
Mr. Dotson said he could support day care in almost any district, by special permit.
He said day care should be near activity centers. However, the Ordinance does not
presently allow this. He noted that both citizen speakers had suggested a special
permit approach. He said rezoning this property to Highway Commercial would be
spot zoning because it is a small ,isolated area, inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, for the convenience of a particular owner under a particular difficulty of timing."
He said to approve this request prior to the consideration of the Comp Plan
Amendment would be "almost tantamount to saying we are approving the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not having considered it." He concluded: "I
support the purpose. I would like to see day care in many areas where there is an
activity center, but it doesn't seem to me that granting this Highway Commercial is the
right way to do it." He favored a zoning text amendment approach.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why a zoning text amendment had not been proposed. Mr. Fritz
said the applicant had not submitted a zoning text amendment request, and staff did
not pursue a ZTA "because the Zoning Ordinance currently permits support
commercial uses, but with industrial development, there is a link that's there." He did
not know if a special permit for day care would fit into the stated purpose and intent of
1
3-25-97 13
*kft,,.: the Light Industrial district, which is intended mainly to be an employment center. Mr.
Cilimberg added: "Under current Ordinance provisions, we tried, with the Zoning
Administrator, to determine how far you could take that supporting commercial aspect.
While the Board has some discretion in granting a percentage, it is basically tied to
the area that it is a part of in terms of the actual parcels in existence that are zoned
industrially. So, we couldn't look at this as a percentage of the area of total industrial
that is adjacent, which goes on through Con Agra. We had to look at it only as a
percentage of the area that is on the parcel."
en
Mr. Kamptner said he shared Mr. Dotson's concerns about spot zoning. He said:
"From a planner's perspective, it certainly is. From a legal standpoint, Virginia courts
have been fairly liberal as long as some public purpose is obtained from the
rezoning.... (Some of Mr. Kamptner's comments were inaudible on the tape.) In this
case, there may be some uses under HC which are farther away from day care
centers in terms of satisfying that public purpose."
Mr. Fritz pointed out that all the uses which the applicant has proffered, with the
exception of the day care, are already permitted in the in the existing LI zone. The
only new use is day care.
Mr. Dotson identified another issue: "Whether it is wise to allow business/professional
offices in an LI zone if we are concerned about protecting industry."
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Fritz clarified that a special permit cannot be
applied for at this time because even though a special permit can be sought for
subordinate retail uses, the Ordinance specifies a relationship --a percentage ratio of
industrial square footage to the subordinate commercial square footage and that ratio
is such that it just isn't practical because the only use which currently exists (under
construction) is the medical offices and that gives them such a small base to work
from as to not be reasonable to construct a day care center. It would give them less
than a 1,000 sq. ft. to work with."
Mr. Nitchmann said he could support this use from both an employer's view point and
a parent's view point. He feels it is beneficial for these centers to be close to both
employment centers and the residential neighborhoods. He concluded: "I don't know
why this didn't come through as a Zoning Text Amendment, but regardless of how it
came to us, if I feel it is really needed here then I have to support it." He did not think
approval of this request was "in any way capitulating the support of a Comp Plan
Amendment.
Mr. Finley said he did not view this use as a buffer. He agreed with Mr. Nitchmann
that there is a need for this use.
,�Z9
3-25-97 14
Mr. Tice agreed there is a need for day care in this area given the growth that has
occurred and will continue to occur. He agreed it was beneficial have day care
centers close to employment centers, thus reducing traffic problems. However, he
was concerned about the Comprehensive Plan issue. He said he would like to see
this as a special use permit, "if we weren't constrained by the percentage guidelines."
He concluded: "I think the cleanest way to do this, from the standpoint of making the
Comprehensive Plan mean something and improving our ordinances for the future is
to do it through a Zoning Text Amendment."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Tice. He added: "I think this is, in part, something
that needs to be thought about in connection with the existing Comprehensive Plan for
that parcel and the area surrounding it. But we also need to consider the work that
has been done in protecting the downtown Crozet area as well. By extension, it's
going to have an effect there as well."
Ms. Huckle said she would consider this more seriously if the person who will be
operating the facility was making the request, "rather than someone who has land they
want to utilize."
Comparing this request to the River Heights item considered earlier in the meeting
Mr. Dotson said: "I think we've already seen, in the River Heights proposal, what
happens when you try to take a zoning district, in that case HC also, and try to
customize it to such a degree that you end up with something that may not be
workable, and I fear this might be one of those. Who knows what we will decide on
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Who knows what this little island with special
proffers would be? I would rather see us approach it as a Zoning Text Amendment
and do it as a matter of policy with proper procedure."
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that ZMA 96-27 for Western
Ridge Business Park be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
(Mr. Dotson's motion included a recommendation that the Board adopt a Resolution of
Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance related to day-care uses, but staff pointed out
that the Resolution could be adopted by the Commission.)
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
Resolution of Intent =Dar Care
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Commission adopt a
Resolution of Intent to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to add day-care as a
use by special permit in the Industrial District, not subject to existing square footage
percentage restrictions in Section 9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3-25-97
The motion passed unanimously.
15
ZMA 96-28 Glenmore Associates - Proposal to rezone 6.6 acres from RA, Rural Areas
to PRD, Planned Residential Development and amend the existing proffers for the
Glenmore PRD. Property, described as Tax Map 93, Parcels 61 and 61 B, is located
near the end of Ashton Drive adjacent to the Glenmore development. This site is
located in the Community of East Rivanna and is recommended for Neighborhood
Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). The existing density is 0.5 dwelling
units per acre.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the proposal.
Ms. Echols passed among the Commission a copy of revised proffers. She said:
"The staff recognizes that the reconstituted set of proffers may not provide you with
enough time for your own analysis. We have examined them in every detail and are
satisfied that with the exception of some very minor changes such as additional dates
and references to the maps showing the Chart 2 tracts, the proffers are adequate to
go forward with if you so choose.". She explained the most substantial change
proposed "is to provide Glenmore with the ability to develop private roads to meet
private road standards in the County, instead of developing private roads to meet
public road standards."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the Commission wanted to defer action so as to allow time
for Commissioners review the information just received from staff. Commissioner
Huckle said it was a lot to read. Commissioners Nitchmann and Dotson expressed
no problem with moving forward. The applicant's representative, Mr. Runkle, said he
had no opposition to a deferral, provided it would not change the date the item is
scheduled for the Board of Supervisors. Staff confirmed the item could be deferred
to April 8th and still be scheduled for the Board on the 16th.
The hearing proceeded.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. His comments and answers to
Commission questions included the following:
-"The only significant issue is the request to reduce the design standard for five
or less lots. The purpose of the request is to allow the creation of more lots than
could otherwise be created." A reduced design standard will require less cut and will
reduce grading.
-- Presently, the residents of Glenmore are responsible for road maintenance.
A concern has been expressed by a Glenmore resident as to who will maintain the
road (also could be considered a driveway) for these five lots, once it leaves the cul-
de-sac. Two approaches are: (1) A road maintenance agreement among those five
lot owners; or (2) The Homeowners' Association would continue to maintain the
"primary part of their road." "The real issue is does it increase the per capita/per lot
3-25-97 16
cost for road maintenance? If you ran the road the length of the original design, the
cost to the homeowner would be greater. I'm not sure that's a legitimate argument but
we can live with that either way. The question of whether the road serving five lots is
a road or a driveway after it leaves the cul-de-sac has yet to be decided. If the
judgement is made that it is a driveway, then those five people would contribute to its
maintenance under a road maintenance agreement. ... However, it would be cheaper
to maintain that road as a part of the main road system than it would be to maintain
the main road if it were extended to serve those five lots." He concluded.. "I don't
think it is a valid argument that by allowing this change their road maintenance costs
will increase. If anything, their costs should decrease."
--The area shown in "yellow" has already been designated as "future growth for
residential development areas, with the exception of the parcels that we originally
surrounded and are adding."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed that when the original zoning was approved and private roads
were allowed in this development, "the Board, in its action to approve the rezoning for
Glenmore actually approved private roads throughout that development, meeting
mountainous terrain standards; they gave a blanket approval for that level of private
road. So when they develop their road system now, staff does not go through a test
to see if that particular cul-de-sac or street is less environmentally degrading than a
public road would be. The request here would add a second level of road that would
go through that test. Each of those roads would be reviewed by the Engineering
Department in terms of environmental degradation."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Gary Coleman, a resident of Ashton Road, asked if there was a plan to upgrade
Ashton Road to State standards. Staff responded negatively. He expressed concern
about the Glenmore Development spreading beyond what he understood was its
original plan. He was concerned about construction noise and the impact to his
property. He did not want his property to lose its rural characteristics. He was
concerned about the possible future construction of "public access roads." He asked
if the residents of Ashton Road could receive notification of future development plans
farther in advance than is presently the case.
In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Coleman confirmed that Ashton Road is an
extension of Glenmore Way.
Ms. Cecily Reynolds, a resident of Ashton Road, expressed opposition to Glenmore's
use of Ashton Road. She described problems which the residents of Ashton Road
have experienced because of the use of the road by Glenmore construction vehicles.
She feared that the development of this 6 acres would invite those lots to use Ashton
Road as their access. She described Ashton Road as a "private road." She feared
M
3-25-97
17
her property would lose its aesthetic amenities as a result of Glenmore's continued
growth.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on "adverse possession, prescriptive
easements, etc., when someone uses someone else's road." (Mr. Kamptner's
comments were inaudible on the tape.)
Though Ms. Reynolds said Ashton Road is a private road, Mr. Runkle later explained
that Glenmore owns the right-of-way for Ashton Road and those residents which exist
on Ashton Road have access easements over the road. He explained: "One of
Glenmore's original proffers was to grant that right-of-way to the County, upon the
request of the County, so that it would become a public road from where Ashton Road
re-enters our property to a point on the eastern boundary of our property. In this
particular case, the properties that we are talking about are properties that we
surrounded originally --there were four properties --and they were all accessed by
Ashton Road. We have reached agreement with one of those four properties that we
do not as yet own, and though that agreement is not final, we have reached an
agreement with the owner of that property, that his access, should he not sell to us,
would be through Glenmore, i.e. through the Gate House and the Glenmore road
system, and we have amended the covenants and restrictions for Glenmore so that
property owner can use Glenmore roads. His property and the three that we are
surrounding here, and the ones in question tonight relative to the rezoning request, all
will be accessed through the Glenmore Gate House. They will not use Ashton Road
and Ashton Road will be closed at our property line. The intent of that is so that these
areas and the areas that surround these areas will all be entirely accessed through
the Glenmore Gate House and specifically such that there will not be public access to
any portion of Glenmore, to preserve the access through the existing Gate House. If
you wish a proffer guaranteeing that none of these properties will be accessed by
Ashton Road, that's fine. It's not our intent to access them in that direction."
Mr. Dotson clarified: "So all of your property, whether you own it now or will acquire it
in the future, will take access through the Gate House." Mr. Runkle responded: "Our
intent is everything that we have now or anything that we are talking to anybody about
acquiring would be accessed through the Gate House. We went to great lengths,
because we didn't own these four properties, to get agreements with the property
owners before we owned them to allow us to close that road where it enters their
access off of Ashton so that we could close it because our motivation is to make that
property accessible from within Glenmore."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Runkle to comment on Ms. Reynolds' description of "creeping
development." Mr. Runkle responded: "The growth area goes to Running Deer Road.
Whether I buy it or whether somebody else buys it, this is a growth area and by the
latest Comprehensive Plan revision, the density in this growth area has been
increased from 1 unit/acre to 3-6 units/acre. What we're doing is developing these
,-2 y,,2,
3-25-97 18
particular properties at a density consistent with what Glenmore has been developed
at. It's a growth area so the expectation over time is that it will probably be
developed."
[9.50 - Mr. Tice left the meeting at this time.]
Ms. Echols read a statement from Mr. Neil Goldwine, a resident of Glenmore, which
she had received by phone just prior to the meeting. Mr. Goldwine was "concerned
that the Glenmore Homeowner's Association does not incur any additional
maintenance costs due to the plans by the Kessler group to have common driveways
to multiple homes. All current homeowners are responsible for their own driveways.
Where 3 - 5 lots are served from a 'private road', which would be constructed to meet
private road standards, the only persons who will use the 'drives' are the property
owners. Therefore, why should the Homeowner's Association be responsible for the
maintenance? Other private roads built to public road standards serve all persons in
the development."
Ms. Huckle said she had not realized the complexity of this request. She favored a
deferral.
Mr. Nitchmann disagreed. He said: "What's complicated? There's a piece of land
that is surrounded by a growth area today. They are not going to use the private
road. The access is going to be internal, through Glenmore. It is filling in a piece of
land that had the owner wanted to sell when the remainder was purchased by the
applicant it would have already been part of it. I don't understand what is so
complicated. They are going to close the road and have agreed to add a proffer
saying they will close it."
Ms. Huckle said she would like to have time to read all the documentation submitted
before making a decision. She thought the information must be important or staff
would not have given it to the Commission.
Mr. Dotson said he would have no objection to deferring action to the 8th, but no later.
Mr. Loewenstein said he would not object to a deferral, but he thought the request had
been clarified considerably during the discussion.
He asked for a motion.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 96-28 for
Glenmore Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers and with the understanding the
Commission anticipates that an additional proffer will be submitted, as offered by the
applicant, related to the access of this property through the Glenmore Gate House
and the closing of Ashton Road at the Glenmore property line.
3-25-97 19
Discussion:
Mr. Cilimberg cautioned that the wording of the new proffer should be such so as not
to conflict with an existing proffer which speaks to the reservation of land that could be
necessary for the through road in Rivanna Village that was called for by the Comp
Plan amendment of 1989. He said: "I don't think making reference to all of this area
being added being internally served through Glenmore is any problem whatsoever. I
don't even think that the indication that Ashton would not be used for ingress or
egress to Glenmore is a problem, but we want to make sure it is understood that
could be part of an ultimate road going through and that has not been designed or
planned at this point. We don't want to jeopardize that proffer that already exists.
There is a specific reference in the Comp Plan to a through road in the Rivanna
Village. They have allowed for it to this point. "
Mr. Runkle clarified further: "We intend to close this road (Ashton) so that it does not
provide access for residents. If in the approval process, the staff, Planning
Commission and the Board, decide that road should provide emergency access,
would like the proffer to reflect that we will not make it an access for normal traffic, but
if required of us, it will be made available for emergency access." Mr. Cilimberg
commented: "I think that is advisable."
The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting
vote.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
A.
OWA
;�_ LILI