HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 12 1995 PC Minutes12-12-95
In
DECEMBER 12, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 12, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica
Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner;
Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer; Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner; and Mr.
Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. and a quorum was established.
Ms. Imhoff read a prepared statement which was a response to a member of the
public's concern about her position with the Piedmont Environmental Council. Her
statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A.
Meadow Creek Parkway Corridor Public Hearing
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed the history of the Parkway to date. The staff report
explained the recommendation of the Meadow Creek Task Force, i.e. to "designate the
Meadow Creek Parkway Corridor from Rio Road to Rt. 29N in the County's
Comprehensive Plan and Charlottesville Area Transportation Study as a 45 mph minor
arterial road with three connection points--(1) for undeveloped land between Rt. 29 and
Rt. 643; (2) at Rt. 643; and (3) for undeveloped land between the South Fork Rivanna
River and Rio Road intersections.... The parkway, with these three connections,
provides a desirable traffic carrying function by moving approximately 16,000 to 18,000
vehicles per day in the forecast year (2015) while relieving Rt. 29N of some 13,800
vehicles per day south of its intersection with the Meadow Creek Parkway and relieving
Rio Road of approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. Detailed analysis of the potential
cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway (not including the 'W extension or any 'T'
connectors) under this concept has reduced the estimated cost from $72,500,000
(Sverdrup estimate) to $42,000,000 in year 2005."
Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, explained how the Task Force proposal differs from
Sverdrup's (the consultant) proposal and how the cost was calculated.
Public comment:
In
12-12-95 2
W.. Dick Britton - He suggested consideration should be given to a route "beginning
at G1, turning west, running along the Rivanna River, between Rt. 643 and the river,
joining Rt. 29 approximately where Rt. 643 joins now."
Walter Johnson - He recalled the route proposed by the Task Force was rejected
previously because of "the lack of traffic anticipated and the high cost when computed
in terms of dollars per car." Also "nobody wanted it." The concept supported by the
majority of the Commission previously "was running north and east of the populated
area now, almost following the path of the railway." He suggested: "The primary
consideration be to the future--2 to 3 decades to the future --and what is going to
happen to the northern part of this community and that something to the north and east
of that which is being proposed now be considered. If this appears to be a viable
objective, the first step is to consider the acquisition of right-of-way. That is the least
expensive and most cost effective thing you can do now. Acquire the right-of-way
which will allow a 4-lane highway with a median strip with a bike path. Then when it
comes to construction, construct 2 lanes and then build onto it. This configuration, as
being considered again, appears to me as having limited, almost negligible, growth."
Jack Wilson (a resident of DunLora) - He agreed with Mr. Johnson that there is
no public support, particularly from the County citizens who are supposed to be served
by this highway. He thought this has always been "an effort by those who have resisted
the western bypass to force traffic east of 29 rather than west of 29. He thought a
western bypass would handle most of the through -traffic, particularly truck traffic. He
said no consideration has been given to the impact of this road on the southern end of
Rio Road. He said there are now 100 homes in DunLora, "the entrance of which is
located at the interchange with Rio Road and this parkway." He thought the proposal
that this was to be an at -grade interchange, was "ludicrous." He concluded: "It looks to
me like we are now trying to justify this road on a reduced cost." He thought the
projected right-of-way acquisition cost was much too low.
Harry Dannals (Bentivar Drive) - He thought it was very difficult to understand the
exact location of the road based on the drawings.
John MacDonald (Chair of Forest Lakes Transportation Committee) - He said the
Forest Lakes residents support the deletion of the T-1 connector which conflict's with
the Comp Plan's recommendation that through -traffic be kept out of residential
neighborhoods. He said that Forest Lakes, and other northern communities, are not
against the northern extension of the Meadow Creek Parkway, though it was felt that
$70,000,000 was much too high a price for such a short section of road. He concluded:
"If it's possible to design that road and put it in for approximately $30,000,000, most of
our residents would probably support that because it eliminates the left turn on Rio
Road which we feel, in the year 2015, will be a tremendous bottleneck because of the
increase in traffic on 29. Our position is, if it can built at a reasonable cost, and it is
environmentally friendly, most of our residents would be for this."
Charles Fleming (Forest Lakes resident and a participant in the Northern Virginia
29 Corridor Study) - He said Northern Virginia is considering the possibility of "not
concentrating the corridor on 29, (rather) why not get the traffic off 29 and make the
- 12-12-95 3
connectors a lot easier." He suggested "following B1 or B2 along the Southern
Railroad, projecting Rt. 649 over to that connection, thereby picking up a larger
northeast area along Rt. 20 and you could eliminate some of the traffic from 649 and 20
if you carry it further." He said: "What you're doing now is making an hourglass around
Forest Lakes and Hollymead if you use the W1 connection with the T4, but if you
straighten T4 out so it goes along the Southern Railroad, you've picked up further
northeast, which would funnel the traffic away from 29."
Bob Hauser (developer of DunLora) - He expressed concern about the
vagueness of the plans. He asked that the Commission consider the effect on property
values and neighborhoods such as DunLora when an alignment is placed in the CAT
Study , the result of which is to push growth out of the growth areas into the rural area.
He encouraged the Commission consider the alignment which is adjacent to the
railroad track
Tony lachetta - Recalling that this issue has been studied since 1979, he said:
"What happens when we take so long to do these things is that all the circumstances
which are considered when the proposals are first made are lost and we have no
control over what happens.... To talk about spending even $31,000,000 to build four
miles of road is ludicrous in a time when there are many, many other needs for roads in
the State. If you are really serious about building this road, then someone ought to
make a decision about where it is going to go on the ground and buy the right-of-way.
If we had done that with 29 North back in 1968, when the first CAT Study was done,
today we would have room on both sides of the highway for service roads so we
wouldn't have this 10-lane monster. The corridor study seems far-fetched in terms of
trying to create or maintain an arterial highway when you are allowing all sorts of curb
cuts, and more and more traffic lights. So it seems to me that part of the study needs to
be more intelligently viewed as'what have you really done to what was a major
highway?"'
Terry Schultz - He agreed that the acquisition of right-of-way should be the first
priority to "alleviate all the confusion that the past has caused." He also suggested that
the Southern Railroad rights be purchased "and look at alternatives for the railroad to
move rather than people to move."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg addressed the issue of the lack of preciseness of the alignment. He
explained that the different options shown will be part of an environmental study
process and until that happens a location cannot be defined nor right-of-way acquired.
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Cilimberg to comment on the Rt. 29 North Corridor Study. She
said the Commission is once again being asked to have a "piecemeal discussion of a
portion of the corridor, with the knowledge that this may all change with the Rt. 29
Corridor."
12-12-95 4
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The Corridor study begins at the point where this proposal
shows the Meadow Creek coming into 29, which is also where the western bypass
would come into 29. It is from that point that the corridor study is focused, all the way to
Warrenton. So we felt, making recommendations beyond the western bypass and
Meadow Creek Parkway intersections with Rt. 29 would, at this time, be premature.
That is why we stopped short of getting into discussion of the W extension or the T4 or
any other concepts that might be either further east or further west or in the alignment
of 29 and just focused on Meadow Creek itself up to that point where the western
bypass is. We felt, based on traffic, that that was a justifiable section. It doesn't mean
that it is going to be the last of the projects on 29 north because the Corridor Study,
from that point north, really has to deal with that."
Mr. Dotson asked Ms. Higgins what the cost of the road, per mile, is estimated to be.
Ms. Higgins said the construction cost is 2.9 million dollars per mile, excluding bridge
cost. She confirmed she felt the estimate was accurate because it is based on VDOT
figures.
Commission comments about the proposal before the Commission:
DOTSON
Mr. Dotson said he thought it was a mistake to say this project will only divert 14,000
vehicles. He said: "I think the proper way to look at it is if there are 46,000 vehicles on
Rt. 29 without it, then all 46,000 are benefitting from having it. The people who can
now drive the parkway are getting a benefit and the people who are left on 29 now find
they only have 30,000 cars there. Everybody benefits. I think we must be very careful
in the way we think about benefits because it is not just the people who shift over to the
parkway, it is also the people who find 29 less unreasonable to drive on." He
expressed agreement with staffs proposal for the deletion of the T1 and T3 connectors.
He concluded: "I'd like to see us get behind this. I think it is a useful, in -fill project road
project, if not a bypass, it is essentially an in -fill need, a need we've already got. We
waited too long; we need to move forward on it."
BLUE:
"I'd like to commend the staff. I think they did a good report. I think the fact that it does
come out at a lower cost and a higher usage is certainly in the right direction.... (But)
I'm going to vote against this project because I don't think this northern section of the
Meadow Creek Parkway is necessary. It is not needed now and I don't think it will be
needed in 2015. That doesn't mean something isn't needed. (The reason I don't think
so), and I want to emphasize I'm talking about the northern section of the Meadow
Creek Parkway, from the DunLora entrance out to 29 as we've been discussing tonight.
There are four conditions which exist, or are going to exist that make it unnecessary:
12-12-95 5
(1) Rio Road from the railroad crossing at VoTech to Rt. 29, is already four lanes and is
working well; (2) Replacing the section of Rio Road, coming back into town, has
already been approved, with construction to begin in 1997; (3) When the present
improvements to Rt. 29 are complete, it will make the traffic situation better on that
portion of 29; and (4) The Western Bypass has been approved, its location has been
approved, and it is going to be built. I realize, based on the CAT Study and some of the
agreements, staff has been working on the premise that the Meadow Creek Parkway
will be built before the Western Bypass. I am predicting that is not going to be the case.
So I think when a western bypass is built, Rt. 29 is widened from Hydraulic Road to the
river, and with the present 4-laning of Rio Road, all those things combined will mean
that Meadow Creek Parkway is not going to be needed. I think something else is
needed. I think, we need a connection from the north part of the county to the eastern
part of the county (to connect Peter Jefferson Place on Pantops Mountain and the
University Real Estate Foundation Research Park on Rt. 29 North). These are the
biggest projects to ever come to Albemarle County. I don't think we need this in place
of any of those things, but I think we need it in addition to. I am not going to suggest
an alignment at this time but what I think we should be planning to do right now is ask
VDOT to cooperate with the County administration in selecting a potential route for an
eastern bypass to connect those two areas. It will probably be at least 20 years before
it is built ... but this is something that is long past due and we ought to start studying it
now and ought to be trying to buy the right-of-way now or as soon as possible.... I do
not know of any major urban area in the country that has an urban population of over
100,000 that doesn't have some sort of circumfrential highway.... I think now is the time
to do it and to forget about this northern section of the Meadow Creek Parkway. It may
have been a good idea when it was proposed 15 or 20 years ago, but it is not a good
idea now."
NITCHMANN:
"When this first became before us I thought maybe we should be looking at a bigger
picture and (I wondered) why are we looking at paying $72,000,000 for 4 miles of road.
At the time it was justified because it was going to help people get into the City and the
University area better. Now with the Western Bypass and the improvements on Rt. 29
and Rio Road, I still feel --and I voted against it last time --that it is an ill-conceived idea
for a number of reasons. One is that I am still concerned about the fact that the
citizens still don't know where these roads are going to go. ... Your recommendations
from the Task Force still has 5 or 6 alignments." (Mr. Cilimberg commented: "As I said,
we are looking at a corridor. We can't get down to a decision of a particular location at
this point.") Mr. Nitchmann continued: "I think you need to. I think if this is going to be
successful, you need to be more specific where you are going with this. I think to come
up with this many possible alignments is ridiculous. You are trying to cover all the
w; bases to be sure you end up with one good one. ... We spent a considerable amount of
money with the consultant's study, which ended up with one alignment, and we're back
,-) o . -
12-12-95 6
%taw to having 8 here. That's just one of the problems I have." Mr. Nitchmann's other
concerns included:
--The estimate is still about $10,000,000 too high.
--Ending it where proposed is a mistake. It should follow the Southern Railroad
as far north as it possibly can and come back in above Proffitt Road someplace with no
interchange over the Proffit Road area.
He concluded: "I think there are just too many unanswered questions about this for me
to send this to the Board of Supervisors, to vote on it in haste so that it can be moved to
the MPO so that we can get before VDOT in March or April. That is an injustice to the
County and to the public and to the rest of the State. I am upset about the fact that this
process was started in May and you're asking us, in one hour and 10 minutes, to make
a significant decision that you say is going to cost $31,000,000. 1 do not think that is
the proper thing to do and I will not support this and I recommend that we pay a lot
more attention to Mr. Blue's comments because I think that is what the previous
Planning Commission started to say three years ago."
HUCKLE:
"The public comment today has shown what happens when we delay. The more
delays, the more development occurs, resulting in more resistance, more costs and
more delays. It is a vicious circle. People have said we should have built it a long time
ago. We should have reserved the right-of-way. When can we start? If we delay it
again, a few more years, the price will be higher and there will be more people to
oppose it and more people to use it. As far as starting further up 29, there are going to
be people between there and the suggested entrance point onto Rt. 29. People are not
going to drive north in order to get on this thing. They will be going further south and
east. I think to make it too far north is going to leave out a lot of people who want to
use the road. I would like to see us approve this and send it on and let the Board of
Supervisors talk about it."
IMHOFF:
"My dilemma with this road is that we have put so much development on Rt. 29 North
and we have so many people, so every time there is an opportunity to connect places,
to make some kind of way that people can have another option to travel, I find myself
hard pressed to say 'no' to that. Some of the comments I heard tonight from the
citizens is that perhaps the character of the road needs to change; maybe it should only
be a 2-lane road; maybe this whole parkway idea needs to be re -thought. I feel there is
a sense that some connection along that alignment would serve the public. However, I
really don't feel confident on voting on this this evening given not only the price tag, but
I think some interesting questions have been raised as to why it doesn't go along the
railroad and what happens to some of these other connectors which, to me, are critical.
`"" If you don't have the W connectors, I then begin to question spending $30,000,000 if
12-12-95 7
1*.. you don't have roads that service all this industrial land that you've put on the west side
of Rt. 29. 1 am feeling very unconfident and unsure of having a positive vote this
evening but I don't want to send a negative message. I do think some road is needed,
generally, in that area."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved "that we not send forth the Meadow Creek Parkway
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors without doing further studies." Ms.
Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson questioned what type of study was envisioned, and in what time frame.
Mr. Nitchmann said he would be willing to make an alternative motion "that we not even
consider the Meadow Creek Parkway in its current path whatsoever, and that we go
back to the drawing board and start over again and forget about the money we have
spent so far and look out a little farther in time." (NOTE: This statement was not given
consideration as an alternative motion.]
Mr. Cilimberg was asked to comment on the issue of a time frame for further study.
(Mr. Blue said he understood the driving force for action at this time is so that "the
County can get on the list for primary funding for this particular road from VDOT this
spring.") Mr. Cilimberg called attention to Attachment B to the staff report. He said staff
has attempted to meet the charge to the Task Force. He confirmed if the motion made
by Mr. Nitchmann passes then the County will not get in line for this particular funding
for the Meadow Creek Parkway." Later in the meeting Mr. Cilimberg stressed: "This is
only a first step and a location decision has to come much later. Until we have a
corridor established and committed to, we can't get a line on the map which defines the
location. What you're being asked to do tonight is either support, or not support, the
basic corridor."
Ms. Imhoff suggested: "If we could at least proceed to start getting ourselves in the line
and then have the discussion about how the character of the design might change
significantly for the Parkway --maybe it will be a completely different road. It might be to
the County's benefit to at least be on the list, looking for the State funding, since it takes
so long."
Mr. Blue responded: "If you believe this parkway, in some general location is
necessary, I would have to agree with you. I just don't happen to believe that it is
(necessary)."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there is a possibility the approval of the Meadow Creek
6W Parkway might divert funds from the Western Bypass. Mr. Cilimberg could not answer
12-12-95 8
definitively but agreed it was a possibility: He said: " I can say that the Western
Bypass, in the priorities, is behind Meadow Creek Parkway. There has been no
indication to us as to what would end up being the funding priority with VDOT."
Mr. Nitchmann noted that missing this opportunity means that it will be delayed one
more year. He said: "If we move this forward with approximately a $40,000,000
budget in that time frame, it is still going to get serious consideration from VDOT
because it is still a substantial amount of money being taken from the whole region to
serve so few cars. I don't see how our members on the VDOT Board can say to these
other communities that we really need that money and it is more important for us than
for some other area. I just believe it is a better idea to look at a 2-lane road and go
into secondary funds, with a 4-lane right-of-way, upgradable at some future time into
the primary road system."
Mr. Dotson addressed Mr. Nitchmann's comments: "What you've just mentioned could
be called a building block approach. That's the way I see this. It is saying even if you
were to go up the railroad, this portion would likely, in my view, be necessary in any
case, so it's getting this first building block underway. I hate to think about the
industrial rezoning that is on the agenda later if we keep dilly-dallying on the Meadow
Creek Parkway. I hate to think of making decisions on UREF. I think in terms of
homeowners in Forest Lakes and Hollymead and the marketability of their houses as
traffic starts to build up on 29--50,000 cars, if this project would help improve
accessibility in that corridor, is not a few cars. We shouldn't just look at the cars that
are diverted off 29. It's going to benefit the people that continue to use 29."
Ms. Huckle pointed out that there is presently a lot of growth area land in the 29 North
area, and there is a proposal that more area be added. She said: "If we don't get
something on the books, and some right-of-way attached, we're going to have the
same problem with that land that is not developed yet but is in the growth area, or will
be in the growth area, and the people who are in there are going to be just like the
other people that have been effected that we've already heard from."
Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the process which would follow if the
Commission were to endorse Mr. Blue's proposal for an eastern bypass. Mr.
Cilimberg explained a entire new analysis would have to take place. He said the idea
has been considered before and "the county's position has been, up to this point, that
they do not want the eastern bypass, so it is something the Board would have to
move forward with in lieu of what you're considering tonight."
Mr. Blue pointed out that "since an eastern bypass was studied some years back,
UREF has taken place and Peter Jefferson Place has taken place." He added that just
because a project is included in the CAT Study, there is no guarantee that it will be
built. He said the CAT Study has shown a connector from Rio Road to Rt. 20 for 20 or
M
12-12-95 9
*ft. 25 years, and even though it was strongly opposed and a request was made that it be
removed from the CATS, it remains.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why so much time had been spent to project a cost for this project
if the purpose at this time is simply to establish a corridor. Mr. Cilimberg explained the
Task Force had been charged with looking at cost estimates.
Mr. Blue suggested it was time to vote on the motion.
The previously stated motion, that the proposal not be forwarded to the Board until
further study has occurred, failed to pass (3:4) with Commissioners Blue, Nitchmann
and Vaughan voting for the motion and Commissioners Dotson, Huckle, Imhoff and
Jenkins voting against.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that staffs recommendation, with all its components, be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration, with the support of the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann stated: "I still think there are too many dangerous things within this
proposal to go forward to the Board without us having more discussion on it."
Ms. Huckle called the question. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion to call the question.
The motion passed by voice vote.
The motion to move the Meadow Creek Parkway Corridor forward to the Board passed
(4:3) with Commissioners Dotson, Huckle, Imhoff and Jenkins voting for the motion and
Commissioners Blue, Nitchmann and Vaughan voting against.
Mr. Blue explained that his suggestion for an eastern bypass was not in lieu of a
western bypass. He said he feels a western bypass is needed now and an eastern
bypass will be needed in the future.
The meeting recessed from 7:40 to 7:45.
The minutes of the November 28th meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the December 6th Board of Supervisors
meeting.
cm
12-12-95 10
CONSENT AGENDA - Hollymead Recreation Area Amendment - Proposal to
remove and relocate the existing pool and recreational facilities. This action requires a
modification of Section 4.2.3.5 to allow activity on critical slopes and Section 5.1.6a to
allow the area around the pool to be located 22 feet from a residential property line.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-12 River Heights - Petition to rezone approximately 29 acres from Rural Area
to LI, Light Industrial (proffered). Property, described as a portion of Tax Map 32,
parcels 5 (part of) and 5C (part of) and Tax Map 33, parcel 14 (part of), is located on
the east side of Route 29 approximately 0.5 miles north of the North Fork Rivanna River
in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area and
is recommended for Industrial Service in the Village of Piney Mountain.
Staff requested deferral to January 9, 1996 due to a legal advertising error.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that ZMA-94-12 be deferred to
*#AW January 9, 1996. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-95-14 Dennis Rooker/Ivy Creek, Inc. et al - Petition to rezone 215.0 acres from
PRD, Planned Residential Development to RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax Map 59A1, Parcels 1-33 and B (open space). This site is the location of the Ivy
Creek Subdivision and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is
not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Deferred from the December 5,
1995 Commission Meeting.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Blue said he had received calls from Farmington property owners who were
concerned about the possible impact of this proposal on the usage of Farmington
roads. He stressed that the applicant's proposal is to rezone property and approval of
the proposal is not an approval for any additional usage of Farmington private roads."
Mr. Keeler added: "I believe that is correct. We approved a plat for the property north
of this, Ivy Creek, which had, basically, been subdivided also. That plat restored the
parcels that existed prior to the subdivision. What this first proffer envisions is a re -
subdivision so it is treated the same as any other subdivision and under the subdivision
ordinance private roads provisions, access to the subdivision is limited to the private
'�"' road that the Planning Commission approves. So in order to have access to Brook
12-12-95 11
Road, you would specifically have to approve it for that subdivision (Ivy Creek). On the
plat we would recommend that a note be included to the effect that the access is limited
to Broomley Road only and no access onto Brook Road. That way, any lot purchaser
could not say he was unaware of it."
Mr. Blue attempted to clarify the matter further: "The property owners in Farmington
were concerned that the building of this new driveway would give some possible access
from the Ivy Creek property, but it would be illegal. Therefore, they wanted the
Commission to require a gate on that road. I believe it was our consensus that that
driveway was not part of our consideration and it is not up to the Commission, or
Albemarle County, to try to force the non-use of Farmington Roads, if it is already
illegal. We are not in the enforcement business of requiring gates. Is that correct?"
(Mr. Keeler deferred the question to Mr. Kamptner.)
Mr. Kamptner responded: "The concern we had on this matter, at the last public
hearing, was with respect to posing a proffer related to the rezoning that effects
property that is not part of this rezoning. What Ron is alluding to is, at the map stage,
the County can impose a condition, as part of the map, with respect to the access on
public roads, limiting it that way. That's not before you tonight."
Mr. Blue: "But if it were, we could limit access to Broomley Road, which is a public
*AW road, but not prohibit access to Farmington's private road. Is that what you're saying?
That's what the whole fuss about."
Mr. Kamptner replied: "What I'm saying is that a proffer, that would require an owner
who is separate from this application to impose a gate is, not within your authority."
Mr. Dotson commented: "One of the key issues is the gate. While that is not on this
property, perhaps our attitude towards acting on the requested downzoning on this
property, would be informed by our 1994 action which did make reference to a gate. So
I think what we could do, even though it is on an adjacent property, if the Commission
so felt, we could indicate that we are presuming that gate based on the representations
in the earlier action and on that presumption we are proceeding with this rezoning
which has many things in its favor." Mr. Blue asked: "And how would you address the
gate issue?" Mr. Dotson: "I would simply state, in the minutes, that it is my
presumption, in approving the rezoning, that I was assuming that representations that
have been previously made are still valid representations --that it would be gated --and
on that basis that I can support the rezoning which is consistent with the Plan and has
many things in its favor. I think the residents of Farmington support the rezoning as
well." Mr. Blue: "Your interpretation, if we did that, is that it would require a gate on
that road." Mr. Dotson: "I am not saying this would be a new requirement for a gate,
no. I am saying this would acknowledge the presumption that there was already a
stipulation to gate."
�/?
12-12-95 12
Mr. Nitchmann asked if approval of this request will be binding if the property were to be
sold. Mr. Keeler responded: "Whatever proffers you accept become part of the zoning
on the property and any zoning can be changed by another zoning application through
the same public process."
The applicant, Mr. Dennis Rooker, offered no additional comment, but asked to be
allowed to address any public comments at the end of the public hearing.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Fred Payne, representing the Farmington property owners, addressed the
Commission. He said he did not agree with Mr. Kamptner's assessment. He explained:
"The problem I have with the statement that the Commission does not have any
authority to deal with this issue is that the gate issue was put squarely in issue by the
owners of Broomley Farm in this 1994 action. The difficulty with this is the 1994 action
took the Farmington people entirely by surprise because we were not notified of that
action. If we had been we would have brought this issue up then. Now we are
confronted with a fait a complait where the road is already there, and that is the
difficulty. (He confirmed he was referring to the driveway.) The difficulty is it is a
straight shot. You can say it is illegal if you want, but it may or may not be accurate in
some sense, but how are we going to enforce that? What Mr. Dotson is saying is
exactly right, and that is it is clear from the record that you would never have approved
this 1994 amendment, which allowed the driveway in the first place, if the gate had not
been provided. Since you did approve it, that is why we are here today. If you had not
approved it, then there would be no road and there would be no issue. What concerns
me is the statement that you don't have any authority over it, because it is only by virtue
of your action that it was allowed in the first place. I think you did have the authority to
do that based on what Mr. Fritz said, i.e. if you look at that map, Broomley isn't within
that red area, but the road is and the connection to the road is the issue and that's why
you do have the authority over this. So if you want to require the gate at the property
line, we don't have a problem with that. We don't care where the gate is as long as it
keeps people from making this connection and enforcement is the issue. That's where
we think it is. Other than that, you've seen our correspondence, you've seen what our
position is. I don't want to belabor the issue as to the validity of the 1994 action. I'm
confident of our legal position on that and I know you don't want to get into that. That's
our position."
Mr. Blue asked: "You still oppose the proffer as it stands?" Mr. Payne responded
affirmatively. Mr. Payne concluded: "All we're asking to do is to have it be the way they
said it was going to be in the first place."
The applicant responded: "I don't want it to be said that anything that was represented
by the owner of Broomley Farm in 1994 was not done." He distributed among the
12-12-95 13
Commission photographs showing the gate. He explained the gate is "at the
intersection of the property with Brook Road, at the entry to Farmington." He distributed
a map showing the location of the gate and the driveway. He confirmed that Broomley
Farm has permission to use the Farmington roads. He said if the new driveway was
removed, the situation remaining would be an old driveway which connects Broomley
Road to Brook Road with no gate requirement. The new driveway is behind a gate,
behind the entrance to Ivy Creek. He pointed out that if Flordon residents wanted to
trespass across the property to get to Farmington, the old driveway is a much easier
access. He said: "If you were trying to keep traffic from getting across Broomley onto
Brook Road to Farmington, the best place to put a gate to do that is where that gate is.
The applicant has that gate." Mr. Rooker said the gate has been in place for "some
time."
Mr. Dotson asked if any additional gates were envisioned at the time of the 1994 action.
He referred to the statement that "the drive itself will be gated." It did not say the drive
"is" gated. Mr. Rooker responded: "Broomley Farm never proffered to gate their drives.
The farm manager came and explained what they intended to do with the property.
They have done that and they are now considering adding another gate somewhere
along the driveway. He explained why the owner of Broomley Farm has a problem
with a condition requiring that his property be gated, i.e. would the gate have to be
locked at all times, forever; how would access be achieved; how can guests be
1%W received, etc.? He said the owner of Broomley Farm has lived up to what he said he
was going to do at the time of the'94 amendment, even though it was not a legal
proffer.
Mr. Jenkins asked what legal recourse Farmington residents would have if the owner of
Broomley Farm grants access to Farmington roads by the use of this driveway. Mr.
Rooker replied: "The owner of Broomley does not have the legal right to grant access
to the roads of Farmington for the benefit of adjoining property, and Ivy Creek is
adjoining property. So that would be a legal matter which could be settled between the
property owners.
Mr. Blue said: "it they wanted better security at Broomley Farm, instead of building that
new driveway, they could have put a gate a Broomley Road. Is that what you are
saying?" Mr. Rooker responded affirmatively. Mr. Blue added: But they chose to build
the driveway, so they have the security of the Ivy Creek gate, and now the Farmington
property owners are quite concerned because they think further subdivision might allow
Ivy Creek people to come down that new driveway and into Farmington."
Mr. Rooker pointed out there are only two homes in Ivy Creek, whereas there are
approximately 100 homes in Flordon, where the possibility of use of the old driveway to
enter Farmington roads is much greater. He disagreed with Mr. Payne's statement that
�" it was a "straight shot," pointing out that it is an extremely curvy drive.
12-12-95
14
Mr. Blue said the only point of contention which remains is that the applicant is not
willing to proffer that the gate which exists at Brook Road will always exist and be
gated. Mr. Rooker responded: "That's correct."
Ms. Imhoff felt that Commission discussions of the road in 1994 were tied to a gate.
She said: "So I am bemused by the fact that we have two older existing gates, the one
on Brook Road and the one on Broomley Road and the new road never got a gate as
we discussed. As Mr. Dotson stated, it was my assumption, with that approval, that it
was being gated." She said Farmington had not entered into the discussions at that
time. Rather, the Commission was interested in connection of different roads and she
said she had based her decision on the belief that this new driveway would be gated. It
was an issue of privacy and it has her understanding there would be a gate across the
new driveway to ensure the Broomley Farm privacy. She concluded: "And now I feel
that didn't happen and isn't going to happen."
Mr. Blue said he thought the gate which was discussed in 1994 was the gate which
exists on Broomley Road now. He said: "I thought they stated the reason they did it
was the security of that gate for Broomley Farm. That's what I remember." He was
very familiar with the property and said the gate on Brook Road has been there for
many years.
Ms. Huckle said the Planning Commission was led to believe this was merely a farm
road and the gate was to separate farm traffic from the main house.
Mr. Rooker concluded his statements by calling attention to his letter of December 4,
1995, which relates to a proffer specifically requested by the Farmington residents at
the last meeting, i.e. "to assure them that there is no intention of ever using this private
drive, so long as it connects between Ivy Creek and Brook Road, for subdivision
purposes."
The proffer in the December 4th letter was as follows: "Access limited to Broomley
Road only and no access onto Brook Road. This condition shall prohibit the connection
of a private driveway from the Broomley Farm property to the road serving the
subdivision, provided that the private driveway is not used for subdivision purposes, for
so long as it physically connects the Ivy Creek property to Brook Road."
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the applicant will have to have all proffers formalized
prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing.
The item was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson made the following motion: "I move for approval of ZMA-95-14
with the proffers as stated and amended, and in making that motion I state it was my
1-100 assumption, in the '94 action, that the private drive would be gated and that it is that
12-12-95 15
AOW presumption that makes me feel this zoning map amendment is a good thing. It is
consistent with the Plan; it considerably reduces the density in the watershed and has a
number of things very much in favor of it." (Mr. Dotson further clarified that the proffers
referred to in his motion are numbers 1 and 2 dated November 7th, and number 3 as
amended by Mr. Rooker's December 4th letter.)
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann said he found this issue very confusing. He said he did not understand
why the driveway was constructed given there are two other entrances. He said: "I
really thought there was going to be a gate here and I don't understand why the
reluctancy to leave the gate at Brook Road and just lock it."
Beyond the motion as stated, Ms. Imhoff did not know what more the Commission can
do. She said a proffer cannot be forced and denial of this request would "leave 33 lots
out there in the rural area"
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner if the motion, as worded, offers any assurance that the
gate would remain. Mr. Kamptner responded negatively, confirming that the motion
had no legal standing. He explained: "It is a statement of intent in support of his
motion."
Ms. Huckle said she was very uncomfortable "being put in this position."
The motion passed (5:1:1) with Commissioner Nitchmann casting the dissenting vote,
and Commissioner Huckle abstaining.
SP-95-43 Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. - Petition to relocate the existing pool and
construct additional recreational facilities on 22.4 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 56A2, Section 1, Parcels 72 and 72A, is known as
Claudius Crozet Park. This site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is
recommended for Public/Semi-public use in the Community of Crozet.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Dave Manholdt, President of the Park Board. He
offered the following information:
--It is anticipated final plans for the project will be ready by June.
--The "Kid's Castle" shown on the plan is just part of a wish list. It does not
"�` currently exist, but the Park Board feels there is a need for this type of equipment to go
12-12-95
16
,%MW along with this type of facility. (Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the fact that the
castle is shown very close to the road. She suggested it could be positioned in a safer
location.)
--Though many users of the park walk from surrounding neighborhoods,
adequate parking will have to be provided as part of the final site plan.
--The pool will be a "zero -depth entry pool." Funds are not available to build an
indoor facility.
--Total county funding = $150,000; Park Board funding = $100,000.
Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about the lack of clarity as to exactly what the special
permit was seeking approval for at this time. She asked Mr. Manholdt to list those parts
of the park which relate to the special permit. Mr. Manholdt replied: The only thing
we're interested in tonight is the pool because that is the only thing we have funds to
build. The only reason these other items are in here is to give you some reference
point for the park itself and some contextual information. But the pool, and only the
pool, is what the special permit is about." He had no objection to the permit being
limited to the pool only. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that further additions to the park, or
changes, would require separate special permits or an amendment to this permit.)
Mr. Dotson suggested the applicant have a more defined list of uses ready prior to the
Board hearing. Mr. Dotson noted that since the existing use is non -conforming, this
permit will legitimize a use that has existed for a long time.
Mr. Dotson asked how approvals for special events are handled. Mr. Fritz assumed
special events require a Zoning Department clearance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle said she thought it was a good idea to limit the permit to the relocation of
the pool.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-43 for Claudius Crozet Park be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions and with the
understanding the uses being approved by this permit will be more clearly defined prior
to the Board hearing and that those uses will only be those which are being built "in the
immediate future." [NOTE: This motion was later amended as stated below.]
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle thought the approval was still too open-ended.
NAV
12-12-95 17
Mr. Nitchmann said he understood Ms. Imhof's motion "is leaving it up to the Board to
tighten it down."
Mr. Kamptner said: "So condition #1 would be revised so that it expressly states the
uses that will be granted by the special use permit. Any other uses would require
amendment to the special use permit."
Mr. Cilimberg attempted to clarify the intent of the motion as to the exact uses that are
envisioned. He asked if "all the uses shown on the schematic plan" were acceptable.
Ms. Imhoff replied: "We would not be comfortable with that." Mr. Cilimberg again
asked for clarification of the motion. It was ultimately decided the approval was for "the
pool and the complex area, walking trails and passive recreation such as picnic areas."
No additional playing fields are being approved, other than those which are presently in
existence.
AMENDED MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-43 for Claudius Crozet Park, Inc.
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The use of the property shall be limited to the new pool complex, new parking and
new walking trails, in addition to the uses which presently exist.
2. Overnight parking shall be permitted only if adequate sanitation facilities are
provided to the satisfaction of the Health Department.
3. No site plan shall be approved until adequate parking is provided on the plan.
4. Fencing adjacent to the pool shall provide screening from adjacent residential areas.
5. The sound from any radio, recording device, public address system or other speaker
shall be limited to forty (40) decibels at the nearest residential property line.
6. Improvements to the entrance in accord with the recommendations of VDOT shall be
indicated on the site plan.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 95-18 Lloyd and Patricia Wood - Petition to rezone approximately 5.5 acres from
C-1, Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61,
Parcel 124E (part of), is located on the north side of Rio Road north of and adjacent to
the existing Putt -Putt miniature golf course. This site is located in the Rivanna
'"` Magisterial District and is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2.
12-12-95 18
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance
of the applicant's proffers.
The applicant, Mr. Lloyd Wood, addressed the Commission. He expressed agreement
with the staff report. He stressed the proposed use, a mini self -storage facility, would
create no noise, additional traffic, or lighting. The facility was later described as a "fort"
style which will have all doors opening internally, with a security gate at the entrance,
and only interior wall lighting.
Mr. Fritz explained the applicant has obtained a variance from the BZA to allow lesser
setbacks than required by the Ordinance.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Don Wagner, owner of the adjacent property to the east, addressed the
Commission. He said he has discussed the project at length with Mr. Wood and agrees
with the proposal. He said he supports the proffers offered by the applicant, which staff
has not yet evaluated because they were just submitted by the applicant. He wanted
the record to show that the proffers have been submitted, and that staff will have had
time to review them prior to the Board hearing.
�%w There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA 95-18 for Lloyd and Patricia Wood be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers, and with the understanding any additional proffers will be finalized
prior to the Board hearing.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-95-20 - Ray Beard - Petition to amend the existing agreement of the Briarwood
PRD to allow for the construction of single family attached units at the end of St. Ives
Road. Property, described as Tax Map 32E, Parcel 2, is located on the south side of
St. Ives road at the end of the road in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Village of
Piney Mountain.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the
original approval which was designed to maintain a building pattern within an existing
subdivision was appropriate and no changes in circumstance have been identified.
ow Approval of this request would also result in a density in excess of that recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore staff recommends denial of this request."
12-12-95 19
The applicant, Ray Beard, addressed the Commission. He briefly described the
proposal as follows: "There was 1.82 acres in the total piece of property, with 350 feet
along St. Ives, 150 feet deep. We have taken off two, 65-feet, single-family lots, so
we're now down to 295 feet along St. Ives." He said the County has requested that the
25-foot right-of-way which was originally dedicated, be increased to a 50-foot right-of-
way. It is this change in right-of-way which has effected the development plans for the
property, i.e. the reason for the plan for "attached" single-family dwellings so as to
achieve the maximum development potentials Mr. Beard said that though he was just
as willing to build 3 single family dwellings (as opposed to 1 single family and 2 single-
family attached units) , he could not do that with a 50-foot right-of-way.
Mr. Dotson expressed some confusion about the total number of units because the staff
report says approval of this request will result in an increase from 4 to 6 units. Mr. Fritz
said the total of 6 is "in the entire area marked in red, because 2 units presently exist."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that in order to change the Briarwood PRD from maximum
units of 661 to 663, a rezoning would have to take place which would: (1) Reduce the
right-of-way; and (2) Add one more unit to the allowed number in Briarwood (to allow 3
additional attached lots). That type of proposal is not presently before the Commission.
Mr. Beard pointed out that his property is separate from Briarwood He asked: "Can't
build my three houses before Briarwood builds their other 400?" Mr. Cilimberg
explained that "a total number of lots have been authorized in Briarwood and who
builds first does not make any difference." He said the property in question would have
to be removed from the Briarwood PRD before staff could support approval of this
request.
Ms. Huckle questioned why a 50-foot right-of-way is needed for access to a recreation
area when only an 18-foot right-of-way was required to serve the entire mobile home
park. Mr. Fritz explained that 18 feet was travelway width. He said different options
were discussed with the Engineering Department, but there is a concern about the
topography of this property which effects the amount of right-of-way needed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Some Commissioners were confused as to why this item was before the Commission if
it was not approvable. Mr. Fritz explained: "You can approve the request the applicant
has to modify the existing agreements of the PRD to allow for 663 units, including
single-family attached units."
Given the county's goal to provide affordable housing and promote in -full development,
Mr. Nitchmann said he felt this proposal makes sense. He could see no reason to deny
the request.
12-12-95 20
*46W Ms. Huckle said the residents of Camelot had purchased their homes with the
understanding they would be single-family detached units. Staff confirmed that
Camelot residents were notified and no comment was received by staff.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-95-20 for Ray Beard be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to amendments to agreements 1 and 13
and new agreement 19 as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion based on those reasons stated by Mr. Nitchmann.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson said: "I hadn't realized there was another road coming in and along that
road there would be attached units, so this does make a logical termination of the new
road. I didn't realize that before."
Ms. Imhoff: "I think this would have been preferable as three single-family detached
units on a 25-foot right-of-way. I'm sorry that insight didn't occur because I think it
would be a little more in keeping with buildings in that area. But I do support the in -fill
concept."
Ms. Huckle agreed with Ms. Imhoff.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-95-38 Ruth and Russell Shifflett - Petition to locate a bridge across the Doyles
River within the floodplain of the river. Property, described as Tax Map 15, Parcel 12, is
located on the east side of Rt 810, between Mount Fair and Browns Cove, in the White
Hall magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural
Area 1).
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Scott Willard. He asked for clarification of the time
limit on the permit. Mr. Lilley said the use must be in place within 18 months from the
issuance of the permit. He envisioned no problems in meeting the conditions of
approval.
No public comment was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-95-38 for Ruth and Russell Shifflett be
00 recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval:
12-12-95 21
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final bridge plans and details. The plans
must include grading plans for the road and abutments in the floodplain with details of
culverts through the embankment. Bridge plans must be sealed and signed by a
professional engineer.
2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic, hydraulic, and structural
computations prepared by a professional engineer. Computations shall include an
analysis of the impact to the 100 year floodplain.
3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan if the disturbance
is more than 10,000 square feet.
4. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State
agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. This will involve a
Joint Permit Application through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment.
6. All future divisions of Tax Map 15, parcel 12 shall use this stream crossing for
access to Route 810.
*44W Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle said she felt it was unfortunate the other 2 parcels would not be able to use
this bridge. Mr. Kamptner commented: "This particular application does not create
burdens on these adjoining properties and to require that this applicant grant easement
to adjoining property owners is very close to a taking. If the adjoining property owners
wish to use that bridge they can approach the applicants about acquiring an
easement... before they apply to the County for (additional bridges)."
Mr. Jenkins questioned whether the adjoining properties could feasibly use this bridge
given the topography of the land.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SDP-94-037 Blue Ridge HC Area Shopping Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal
to construct approximately 48,000 square feet of retail and service use supported by
252 parking spaces on 6.2 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance
Corridor. Properties, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 100, plus parts of parcel 110A
#AW and 109B, are located on the south side of Route 250, approximately 0.9 miles east of
12-12-95
22
the Rt. 635/Rt. 240 intersection, in the White Hall Magisterial District. The property is
recommended for Neighborhood Service in the Community of Crozet.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Glenn Brooks, representing the County Engineering Department, offered to answer
Commission questions about the site plan. Ms. Huckle asked if the Engineering
Department had dealt directly with Earth Tech, the company which had performed the
borings tests. Mr. Brooks said he had received the original report from Earth Tech. He
explained how the boring sites had been selected. The sites were agreed to by the
Engineering Department and, he thought, by DEQ.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. He stressed that with the variance
already approved by the BZA this plan is completely in accordance with the Ordinance
requirements, and the applicant agrees with all the suggested conditions of approval.
Mr. Dotson asked if this project has an assigned DEQ project number. Mr. Wagner did
not answer this question directly, but did explain DEQ's involvement in the project. He
said one of the "readings" taken by DEQ had indicated the presence of some material
between the fill and the topsoil. One of the possible sources of the "reading" was
decaying vegetation. Further tests confirmed the "reading" was not from gasoline,
kerosene or any fuel oil. He said further testing will be done which will be monitored by
DEQ. If anything is found which is "above DEQ's trigger level," DEQ requirements will
assure that the material is handled appropriately. Mr. Dotson said he wanted to sure
"DEQ is playing an active and authoritative role in approving the end result that we get,"
and is are not acting in just an advisory role. Mr. Wagner replied: "They have say, as I
understand the law as explained to me by the DEQ people and by our consultant."
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Keeler if there were any "shadows" on this project because of
past rezoning actions. Mr. Keeler responded: "Not that I'm aware of."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Joseph Harding, adjacent property owner to the west, expressed his objection to
having to cross the decel lane for this site in order to get in and out of his property. He
also wanted the record to show that he had been under the impression the stream had
been the demarkation line between HC zoning and RA, but that has proven not to be
the case.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before Commission.
w
12-12-95
23
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the conditions of approval are fairly standard and would have
to be met prior to the approval of the final site plan. Mr. Nitchmann said he could see
no reason to deny the site plan if all conditions can be met.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Blue Ridge HC Area Shopping Center
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the
following conditions are met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the entrance locations and
right-of-way improvements.
b. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall plans, profiles, and
computations.
c. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations.
d. Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
e. Department of Engineering approval of Runoff Control Plan.
f. Proof of Recordation of a County standard Stormwater Management/BMP
Facility Maintenance Agreement.
g. Department of Engineering approval of temporary construction, permanent
1%W access, and permanent drainage easements on adjacent property (TM 56, parcel
110A).
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
i. Fire Official approval of fire flows, fire hydrant(s) locations; and fire truck
connections to sprinkler system(s).
j. Provision of safety fencing along higher portions of retaining wall to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
k. Architectural Review Board issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.
Planning staff review of ARB action regarding landscaping treatment along western
boundary to ensure requirements of Sec. 32.7.9.8 SCREENING are satisfied.
I. Staff approval of redesign of service entrance.
m. Staff approval of traffic control signage and pavement markings.
n. Staff approval of phasing plan. Construction of retaining wall and rough
grading to be complete prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Perimeter
landscaping to be installed with first phase of development.
2. The following conditions shall apply during all construction and stabilization
activities:
a. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with all
requirements of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
r
fT rJ` .-
12-12-95 24
144W b. Forward to Albemarle County Engineering all correspondence with the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality within three (3) days of receipt.
[NOTE: The following condition was added after further discussion.]
c. Albemarle County Engineering Department shall be present during test pit
digging and site meetings between DEQ and the applicant.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked what will happen if contaminants are found after further testing has
been done. Mr. Keeler said it would depend on the nature of the contaminants and
DEQ will make the determination as to how they should be handled. Ms. Huckle
expressed concern about the possible contamination of wells and the stream.
Mr, Dotson pointed out that David Hirschmann, the Water Resources Management
Official for the County, will most likely have a role in this project also. Mr. Dotson noted
that there was no requirement that the Engineering Department make regular visits to
the site during the construction period, "to observe that materials are not getting away
and getting into the stream."
1%w Mr. Jack Kelsey, Assistant County Engineer, commented on the Engineering
Department's degree of involvement in the project. He said once earth work has
begun, typically, the only involvement is then by the Erosion Control Officer. He
confirmed that DEQ will establish any procedures to be followed to deal with
contaminants. Mr. Dotson stated: "I would hope that County Engineering might take a
more active role than usual." Mr. Kelsey said the Engineering Department would like to
be notified of the schedule for the digging of the test pits so as to have the option of
sending someone to be present when this is done. Mr. Dotson said he just wanted the
record to reflect that "more oversight than usual is expected, given the nature of the
site."
Mr. Kelsey said materials have been found which are suspected to be contaminants,
but the source is yet uncertain. Thus the reason for DEQ requesting the test pit be dug,
which will give them the necessary verification that is needed. He also said he was
confident Earth Tech will perform accurate tests given the fact that their reputation is
dependent on their performance.
Because of the recent downsizing of DEQ, Ms. Imhoff said she was somewhat
uncomfortable with relying solely on DEQ to follow-up on this matter. It was decided
the following condition would be added: "Albemarle County Engineering Department
shall be present during test pit digging and site meetings between DEQ and the
aw applicant."
12-12-95
09
25
Ms. Huckle suggested that some borings should be made closer to the stream. These
will give some indication of the status of the wells in the area.
(Mr. John Marston, a Crozet resident, asked why this item was before the Commission
prior to ARB review. Staff explained that it is the applicant's choice as to which occurs
first, and, in this instance, the applicant requested that the item be heard first by the
Commission.)
Mr. Dotson hoped the applicant would consider windows on the side of the building
facing Rt. 250, so that it would not be a large blank wall. He thought this would also be
preferable from a security standpoint.
The motion for approval passed (4:1:2) with Commissioner Imhoff casting the
dissenting vote and Commissioners Vaughan and Huckle abstaining.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00.
R