HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 23 2002 PC MinutesApril 23, 2002
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 23,
2002 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members
attending were Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; William Rieley, Vice -Chairman; William Finley; Rodney
Thomas; Pete Craddock; and Bill Edgerton. Absent from the meeting was Tracy Hopper.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; David
Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney;
Steven Biel, Planner; Joan McDowell, Senior Planner; Stephen Waller, Planner; and Margaret Doherty,
Senior Planner.
Call to Order and establish quorum
Mr. Loewenstein called the meeting to order and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
Mr. Loewenstein asked for additional matters from the public. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — March 5, 2002 and March 19, 2002.
SDP 2002-021 Atlantic Coast Athletic Club la Four Seasons Major Amendment & Waiver -Request
for waiver of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, pursuant to Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Karl Guiler)
SUB 2002-056 Beaver Creek Private Road Request - Request for authorization to construct one or
more private roads in a subdivision. (Francis MacCall)
SUB 2002-058 High View Private Road Request - Request for authorization to construct one or more
private roads in a subdivision. (Francis MacCall)
Review of Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District - Review of the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal
District in accordance with Chapter 3 Section 204 of the Albemarle County Code, which requires regular
reviews of districts. (Scott Clark) PLANNING COMMISSION MUST ACCEPT FOR REVIEW.
Creation of Grassmere Agricultural/Forestal District - Request to create an Agricultural/Forestal
District of Local Significance in accordance with Chapter 3 Section 301 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for creation of districts of local significance is zoned RA Rural Areas. (Scott Clark)
PLANNING COMMISSION MUST ACCEPT APPLICATION.
SDP-02-024 Lifecare Medical Transports Preliminary Site Plan — Critical Slopes Waiver — Request
for waiver of Section 4.2.3.2, Critical Slopes, of the Zoning Ordinance. (Stephen Waller)
ZTA-01-06 Resolution of Intent to amend Zoning Ordinance — Proposal to amend Section 5.1.28,
Borrow, Fill, or Waste Areas, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Michael Barnes)
Mr. Loewenstein asked if any commissioners wished to pull an item from the consent agenda.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002
147
Deferred Item
SP-2001-047 Albemarle Baptist Church (Sign #93 & 94) — Request special use permit to allow a
church in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for churches in the
Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 1 E, contains 6.239 acres, and is located in
the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on the northeast corner of Hydraulic Road (State Route 743) and
Roslyn Ridge Road (State Route 1390), approximately 1.5 miles northeast from the intersection of
Seminole Trail (U.S. 29 North) and Hydraulic Road (State Route 743). The property is zoned Rural Areas
District (RA). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Steven Biel)
DEFERRED FROM THE FEBRUARY 26, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Steven Biel presented the staff report as attached. He noted that the Architectural Review Board has
reviewed this. Changes to the orientation and location of the parking have been made as requested by
the ARB. When the site plan come in, the ARB will be reviewing this again. He asked that condition
number six be deleted. After review of the condition six, he found that the required number of parking
spaces shall be determined by the occupancy of the proposed number of people in the church or the
square footage of the public assembly area.
Mr. Rieley questioned the relationship between this application and their shifting attitude towards the
number of parking spaces required. He pointed out that they have an ordinance amendment in the
works. He asked if this plan is bound by the old ordinance regulations, if the new ordinance is in place
before the site plan is complete. Does that mean that they can lower the number of parking spaces?
Mr. Kamptner stated yes, the parking regulations in effect at the time of the site plan review would be
used.
Mr. Rieley noted that the proposed 29 by-pass would be right on the boundary of this property
Mr. Edgerton noted that the project and parking proposed is phrased. He asked if they could be more
specific about what parking will occur.
Mr. Biel replied that without reviewing the actual site plan that he could not say what parking will take
place.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the numbers listed in the staff report were based on the proposed phases, and Mr.
Biel stated yes that they were.
Mr. Craddock asked if there is any potential for cooperative parking between the two churches, and Mr.
Biel noted that the churches were too far apart with some wooded area between the lots.
SPEAKER FOR REQUEST:
Marcus Deloach, Pastor of Albemarle Baptist Church, stated that several church members were present.
He asked that all their members stand. According to the drawing, the center section of the parking lot has
dotted lines on the left-hand and right-hand sides. The center section would be for phase one. Phase
two would include the parking on either side.
Mr. Thomas ascertained that the applicant was willing to use asphalt on the parking lot.
Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant had considered using something other than asphalt that would allow
water to drain through.
Mr. Deloach replied that their engineer would have to look into this as he was not familiar with that
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 148
Mr. Loewenstein asked for additional public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing
*ftol and brought the special use permit before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Rieley suggested adding the provision that they use pervious pavement on the parking since the
property was in the watershed area.
Mr. Edgerton endorsed adding the condition.
Mr. Craddock stated that number seven says that any thing above the minimum number required would
not be paved.
Mr. Rieley noted that on the previous project, the spaces were to be paved with a permeable paving
material, but not the travel way since that would be more difficult to do.
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to write the condition.
Mr. Finley asked if this would be considerably more costly? The last one that the Commission included
this in was not done.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there was a project located further east on Rio Road that the Commission had
included a condition of this type. Some question was raised in Engineering regarding that technique and
the increased cost. He cautioned the Commission that they did not have any comments from
Engineering regarding that. The condition is going to raise that need to have Engineering comment. By
the time that it gets to the Board, we might have a different kind of thinking from them.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the ordinance requires a recommendation from the Engineering Department.
Mr. Rieley stated that it certainly was reasonable and appropriate for Engineering to review this. If they
find that it is not a good condition, then they can advise the Board of Supervisors to remove the condition.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the additional cost was due to the groundwork that has to be done under the
pavement to provide the drainage. The reduction for the surface runoff and detention would offset this
additional cost. If there were an issue here of lack of area for drainfield, and staff is pointing to the
proposed detention basin as the location of the drainfield, then this would be a win/win situation for
everyone. He pointed out that this was a relatively new initiative. In the watershed, this is more than
appropriate.
Mr. Rieley suggested that permeable pavement will be supplied under the parking spaces to meet the
requirements of the Department of Engineering. He moved for approval of SP-2001-047 with the
conditions as amended deleting condition number six and adding the new condition as previously stated.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of
SP-2001-47 with the following conditions:
1. All requirements of the Architectural Review Board shall be met, including the site plan indicating the
existing tree line and specific trees of 6" or greater and retaining significant trees.
2. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in
substantial compliance with the master plan entitled Albemarle Baptist Church, prepared by Dex A.
Sanders, and dated 11/28/01.
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 435-seat sanctuary.
4. Health Department approval of well and septic systems prior to final site plan approval.
5. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Chapter 18, Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or residentially zoned properties.
6. Any number of parking spaces in excess of the required minimum shall not be paved.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 149
7. There shall be no day care center or private school on -site without approval of a separate special use
permit.
8. Construction of Phase 1 (6,800 sq. ft. sanctuary) shall commence within 48 months or this special
use permit shall expire.
9. All requirements of VDOT shall be met prior to final site plan approval, including approval of one
entrance from Roselyn Ridge Road, with a 100' right -turn lane and 100' taper lane.
10. Permeable pavement shall be used for all parking spaces, subject to the approval of the Department
of Engineering.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that this issue would go the Board of Supervisors on May 15.
ZMA-01-017 Hickory Ridge Equestrian (Sign #73) - Request to rezone 5.02 acres from Planned Unit
Development PUD to Rural Area RA to allow zoning conformity of existing stable and establish two
development rights. The property, described as Tax Map 30 Parcel 39 is located in the White Hall
Magisterial District at 4600 Pelham Road at the northwest corner of Pelham Road and State Route 665.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Joan McDowell) DEFERRED FROM
THE MARCH 19, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Joan McDowell presented the staff report as attached. She noted that the original plan is located on the
wall behind the County Attorney. A smaller copy of the plan is in the brochure attachment. She stated
that the homeowner's signatures for Section One and Two of Hickory Ridge has been received which
states that they want both of the proffers accepted with the rezoning.
Mr. Finley asked when Rivanna Water took over property in the Buck Mountain Watershed, what
happened to the division rights in the property that they took over?
Ms. McDowell stated that there were no division rights afforded with these properties because they were
within a Planned Unit Development and not the Rural Areas zone. She pointed out that division rights
and property that has been subdivided are not quite the same thing. The division rights are afforded to
and given to Rural Areas property. These lots were in the A-1 zone. There were no rights in the 1980-
zoning ordinance. They bought the lots and were not able to apply or transfer those numbers.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that was a separate matter from what they had here.
Mr. Finley noted that they were trying to get back one lot since they had lost so many.
Ms. McDowell stated that the lots were purchased.
Mr. Thomas asked how many property owners would have to be involved in owning the property that the
stables are on to remain under the neighborhood association. Does the neighborhood association have
to be the owners of that stable property?
Ms. McDowell stated that was the original intent. The developer/owner suggested that it had something
to do with getting a hard loan. Our records do not show this, but she assumed that the homeowner's
association did not wish to buy the property in order to fulfill the requirement. To answer the question,
there is no set number of owners.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if they deny the request, then they would remain illegal. He questioned what
happens then.
Ms. McDowell noted that Mr. Kamptner might want to address this issue. She stated from reading the old
Zoning files, the people in Hickory Ridge have a right to keep their horses there and the property is for
open space intended to be used for equestrian use. It could be transferred to just plain open space.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 150
Mr. Finley asked who would own it.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that if you just make it open space, then you still have to take away the stable.
Ms. McDowell stated that she did not believe that you have to demolish the stable.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that it was only the commercial aspect of the stable that has to be removed.
Ms. McDowell stated that if they do not approve the rezoning, you could not put a residence on that.
Mr. Edgerton asked if they approve the rezoning, would there be any requirement for the current owner of
the facility to maintain the stable? Could they tear the stable down and just sell the property as an
individual residential unit?
Mr. Finley asked what other commercial businesses were allowed.
Ms. McDowell stated that the property was not commercial now nor would it be if it were rezoned. By
right under Rural Areas, they could operate a commercial stable. Under Rural Areas, they would be
allowed to do anything that is listed by right. This includes putting in one residence. She stated that they
were not guaranteeing the stable, but just allowing it.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that there was a question as to whether or not this application, if approved,
would be in contradiction to the comprehensive plan. He asked if there were other questions for staff at
this point. As there were no other questions, the public hearing was opened. He asked if the applicant
would like to address the commission.
SPEAKER FOR REQUEST:
John Harris, property owner, stated that there might have been a clerical error in 1974 and that part of
what Ms. Dowell said he felt was misstated. Originally that property was zoned as part of the PUD, the
517 acres. In December, 1974, the Board of Supervisors allowed the developer to buy the property back.
The developer was Hickory Ridge Limited, and he purchased that property from the homeowner's
association. That deed was effective on February 14, 1975. In that deed the County put a restriction that
the use had remained horse -related, polo fields, jumps, rides, whatever without the approval of the
residents of section one and section two of Hickory Ridge. It also gave the homeowner's association a
20-year option to buy the property back. This was February of 1974. In October, 1975 they formed
Hickory Ridge Equestrian, who was still owned by the developer, Hickory Ridge Limited. In the same
deed restrictions is the one that they hold today. The ownership has changed several times for Hickory
Ridge Equestrian. It went from Hickory Ridge Limited to The Brown Land Trust to Alexander Bowers and
to the Alexander Bowers Estate. They learned that the Alexander Bowers Estate was trying to sell the
property in 1995. At that time he wrote to all of the lot owners and received twenty favorable responses.
At the initial meeting eighteen persons showed up with thirteen persons interested in buying the property.
He started negotiations with the estate, which was held by Mr. Musselman. When it came down to the
time to write checks, there were three persons left, Mr. Bruscoe, Mr. Seibert, myself and their wives. The
initial density in that area allowed for 31 lots. Four of those were future lots that were taken up when the
Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority came in with Buck Mountain. Then they took those lots and deeded
those lots over to the homeowner's association. That left 29 lots. Of that, 23 lots are built or buildable.
There are three cases where people own two lots and have built their house on both lots and they can
never be platted. There are eight fewer houses than were originally planned. He pointed out that left
room within the development from that standpoint. He noted that the written consent of all of the owners
of section one and section two have been obtained. In addition, they have a letter from the adjacent
neighborhood, section three, giving their approval as long as they stick to the two proffers submitted. The
submitted proffer limited them to the one subdivision right. The property has been leased to private
operators over the years. There is not one person who lives in Hickory Ridge that has a horse in there. It
has been a commercial operation. When they acquired the property, the three of them that live in the
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 151
M
neighborhood, that was the first time that it had really been owned by owners out there since the
Homeowner's Association sold it in 1975. It just happens that they live there. The Bowers Estate could
have sold that corporation to anybody. There are no restrictions stating who you have to sell a
corporation. It is a bit confusing that you have property that has to the homeowner association property
that is owned by a corporation that can sell it to anyone. They bought the property to protect themselves
because the lot was located in their front yard. The ideal situation would have been for everybody to
jump back in and the homeowner's association buys it, but they did not want to. When they purchased
the property or the corporation, we acquired its only asset that was the stable property. We were required
to honor the existing lease, which were two individuals and not residents of Hickory Ridge. Since that
time, they have leased the property to other people. There is no one who lives there that has a horse out
there. In 1975 when they purchased the property, he went to the Real Estate Department and asked why
the taxes were so high. They noted that the assessment was based on a commercial operation and that
the restrictions on the deed had no bearing on the assessment. Last week they called and asked them
again, and they said that as far as the County was concerned that the zoning was a PUD and the state
classification is commercial. The lot was taxed the same as the near by veterinary hospital on its
replacement value. He asked if it is common open space, why have they been paying commercial taxes
on it. The application was submitted after conferences with the Zoning and Planning administration.
Their guidance was the reason that they applied for two development rights. With the zoning of Rural
Areas, they could continue to operate the stable until what time that somebody might want to build a
house or whatever. By making that property comply with their covenants that apply to the rest of the
subdivision, they would protect themselves from any future development because it would come under
their Architectural Review Board. For examples, this would prevent chicken coops. The corporation
needs to break up due to the aging of all of the members. One of the participants has asked to get out of
the corporation. We believe that this is in the best interest of the public. It would correct the situation in
that it has been operated illegally as a commercial stable. In addition, it would give them a mechanism to
market the property later if they need to. The current occupant applied for license last year and was
turned down because of the zoning. He would like to buy the property, continue to operate the property,
and eventually build a house there. He asked that they approve the application.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the intention was to continue operating the stable if this was approved.
Mr. Harris stated that the proposed buyer wanted to continue to run the stable and in about five to ten
years to build a house.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the stable would be taken down at that time.
Mr. Harris noted that he was not sure, since they would lose control of the property once it was sold.
Actually, the new owner would have plenty of space to have both the house and stable on the property.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if anyone else would like to speak.
David Edwards, President of the Homeowner's Association, stated that this matter has been a point of
discussion of their yearly meetings for a few years. There were some questions. There were some
people who would like to see the stable continue to operate, but they have all indicated that whether it
was a stable or home, they felt fine about it either way. One concern has been the upkeep of the stable
property. The way things are right now; it is difficult to run a viable commercial operation. That is the
reason that many people are interested in the covenants. He stated that there is an additional section not
developed on the original plan. He asked if there is any record why that has not been developed.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that it was not part of this application.
Mr. Edwards stated that it does not appear that they were imposing on the original plan to have an
additional home. The homeowner association authorized him to support this. Therefore, he asked that
the Commission approve the request.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002
152
Steve Beach, who lives in Hickory Ridge Section Three, stated that he was building a house. He noted
that he looks at the back of the stable everyday. He pointed out that they would like to see the stable
operate as a legitimate commercial venture. He questioned what other uses would be allowed on this
property if this was approved.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that essentially only one residence would be allowed on the property.
Mr. Beach asked if the stable was demolished, then nothing could replace it.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that was correct.
Ms. McDowell stated that in order to clarify this, they were asking for rural areas zoning and that allows a
whole number of things in the rural areas, including a commercial stable. There are some things allowed
by right, such as a farm or by special use permit which was an application
Mr. Kamptner stated that the rural areas zoning restricts it to residential uses.
Ms. McDowell stated that they would only be allowed one house or residence.
Ms. Derlin Beach, a member of the Homeowner's Association for Hickory Ridge Three, stated that her
concern was to maintain the stable. The restriction was put on the 1975 deed that a stable would be
required on property. She asked that this be required on this property with the one division right.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he did not think so.
Ms. Beach stated that the Architectural Review Board would have to approve any deconstruction of the
stable.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he did not think so, but he had not seen a copy of the covenants.
Ms. Beach asked if the Association's document indicates that the ARB has to approve any destruction or
any alterations to the parcel.
Ms. McDowell stated that she had read it, but had not memorized it.
Jeff Warner, Piedmont Environmental Council, voiced concerns about the request to change this property
to Rural Areas.
Mr. Harris noted that the restriction for the change to the stable only pertained to sections one and two.
They do have the signatures of all of those persons.
Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing, and brought the item before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked that staff explain more fully the by -right process.
Mr. Cilimberg noted for clarification, the applicants have made a request to rezone what is currently
Planned -Development to Rural Areas. In making that request, they would have the full allowances under
the RA property. It is a second proffer that deals with the convenants and restrictions that is going to limit
what this particular property can do in terms of its development. It sounds like this is going to limit it to a
house. That is really where this stands. They have not proffered to keep the stable. They could do that,
but they have not. They have asked for a rezoning to RA and have proffered to one unit and to follow the
covenants and restrictions.
Mr. Harris stated that the covenant does not require keeping the stable.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 153
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is no requirement to keep the stable that they know of, and certainly they
have not proffered to do so.
Mr. Craddock stated that once the stable is torn down, then it was just a house and five -acre lot.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that was what it becomes.
Mr. Rieley stated that the bottom line of this was taking a piece of land unit development that is part of the
open space and making it a lot.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was making it a lot. He noted that it was using the RA to create a residence,
which was where they run in to trouble with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is not
about creating residences. It is about a district that allows residences, but it is intended if you read the
purpose and intent for a completely different purpose.
Mr. Rieley stated that the bottom line was the most important one and the principle in our requirements
and obligation to make decisions based on the comprehensive plan. This makes it impossible for me to
support this.
Mr. Edgerton noted that currently the lot is not buildable since it was set aside as open space.
Mr. Finley stated that the property must be rezoned in order to authorize a house to be built, and staff
stated that was correct.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the replacement of open space with zoning that would permit a residence is
directly contrary to the comprehensive plan. The comp plan is the most sacre set of guidelines that we
are asked to uphold. Therefore, he could not support this.
Mr. Rieley moved to recommend denial of ZMA-01-017 for Hickory Ridge Equestrian.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried (4:2). (Thomas & Finley — No)
The Commission (4:2) recommended denial of ZMA-01-17 for Hickory Ridge Equestrian to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Board of Supervisors would hear this request on May15th.
SP-2002-003 Sam's Woodworking Shop (Sign #77) - Request for a special use permit to allow for the
construction of a woodworking shop in accordance with Section 10.2.2(31) of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows for a home occupation, Class B. The property described as Tax Map 122, Parcel 33A, contains
12.24 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the northeast side of Route 712
(Coles Rolling Road), approximately 1.25 miles northwest of Route 795 (Blenheim Road). The property is
zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Steven Biel presented the staff report as attached:
Mr. Rieley asked how far the building would be off the road.
Mr. Biel stated that the building would be several hundred feet off Route 712. Wooded areas surround
this property. The house was not visible from Route 712.
Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the commission.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 154
SPEAKER FOR REQUEST:
James Sams, applicant, stated that he had been in the woodworking business since the late seventies.
He noted that he now needs a larger space to work.
Mr. Loewenstein invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the
matter before the Board.
Mr. Rieley stated that this seems to be a reasonable application for a Class B, Home Occupation in an
appropriate area.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-2002-003 with the conditions as recommended by staff.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Commission (6:0) recommended approval of SP-2002-003 with the following conditions:
1. There shall be no on -site sales.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials.
3. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste
regulations.
4. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the designated workshop area,
not to exceed 1,500-sq. ft., as shown on Attachment A.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Board of Supervisors would hear the special use permit on May 15
SP-2002-004 Bright -Triton PCS - CVR 350E (Sign #75) — Request to amend a special use permit in
order to allow the continued use of a personal wireless facility, which was installed in violation of a
condition that was intended to restrict the diameter of a metal monopole to 30 inches at the bottom and
18 inches at the top. The facility instead was constructed with a monopole with diameters of 39.19 inches
at its base and 23.4 inches at its top. This property, described as Tax Map 58-Parcel 61A, contains
approximately 5.144 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of
Tillman Road (Route 676), approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection with Route 250 West. The
property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
(Stephen Waller)
The error was found at the time of final inspection by the Zoning Department of the building permit. Staff
has made a field visit identifying the visibility along Route 250 West, some locations on Morgantown Rd
and within the Glenaire subdivision. Staff cannot say what is visible. It is staff's opinion that the special
use permit process should be the last option. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship in replacing
the pole.
Mr. Finley stated that on page 1, that should be August 8, 2001.
Mr. Waller stated that was correct.
Mr. Finley stated that the letter in the back actually went to the applicant before they started building. He
stated that 2b) states, "The diameter of the pole shall not exceed thirty (30) inches at its base and
eighteen (18) inches at the top." He knew that action to mitigate this was being pursued and that the
monopole might be adversely affected.
Mr. Waller stated yes, that the condition was applied at the time the original building permit was
approved.
Mr. Thomas asked what was the date.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 155
Mr. Thomas stated on December 18, the Board of Supervisors' action letter on page 29, 2 1) states, "The
1#40"' diameter of the pole shall not exceed fifty (50) inches at its base, and twenty (20) inches at the top. This
is a change from the standard condition, which requires a smaller diameter for the pole, to allow the use
of a larger diameter pole which the applicant has in inventory and requested to use at this particular site."
Mr. Waller stated that request was for a monopole that was approved with a modification of that condition.
Staff originally recommended that all of the standard conditions be applied, but when they went to the
Board of Supervisors they allowed a modification of that condition in this one instance in which the
applicant requested that modification. This was at the same time that they were requesting the original
special use permit.
Mr. Edgerton asked if anyone has checked to see if condition number one has been met, pointing out that
the tower appears to be taller than one foot above the top of the tallest tree. There were some other
conditions such as the grounding rod that needed to be checked like 2f, 2g, 2h and 2i. He asked if they
have met all of those conditions or does anybody know.
Mr. Waller stated that at this point the only condition that they were cited in violation of was condition 2B.
As far as whether or not the site complies with all of the other conditions, he has not gotten that
information from the Zoning Department. There was a requirement in the conditions.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was particularly curious about the certification that was required by the
approval of the special use permit that says within one month after completion of the pole, the permittee
shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in
feet above ground level and elevation above sea level.
Mr. Waller stated that at this point, because the site was in violation of condition 2b, the Certificate of
Occupancy has not been issued for the site. He noted that he was unsure if the Zoning Department has
even requested that.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they needed to know if potentially there were other conditions that applied to
the structure that would make it in violation of the original conditions of approval. He could not imagine
that they would want to look at the conditions one at a time. If it had to be built back with a thinner
diameter and the same height, and then they subsequently discovered that the height was also wrong,
then this could be endless. We need to know from someone just how many of those conditions are in
violation. He opposed taking the conditions one at a time.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that they had to go by what Zoning has indicated. Therefore, they would have to ask
them to check those other conditions. The certification could not be submitted until the permitting occurs
with Zoning. They have not permitted this because of the violations. He noted that we would have to ask
them about the other conditions. We do not have that answer. Since they have not cited the violations,
then we could only assume that they are not in violation.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they could proceed with this. He noted that there were some blanks here
that they needed to know. He asked if anyone else has questions or comments for staff.
Mr. Finley stated that if this were denied, then would he have to start the process over from the beginning.
Mr. Waller stated that they would have to build a facility that complies with all of the special use permit
conditions. Once they find that everything is in compliance, then they could receive a certificate of
occupancy for the structure.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that they would come back to this issue of other possible violations because it
was not what was before them. He asked that they focus for the moment on the application they had
before them. He asked if there were other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the commission.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 156
SPEAKERS FOR REQUEST:
Valerie Long, representative for Triton, PCS, stated that Dale Finocchi with Triton PCS was here this
evening. He was the head of the Zoning Staff Department at Triton. As Mr. Waller stated, Triton is
seeking an amendment to 2b of the special use permit, SP 2001-08. She reiterated that this was a
mistake on the part of Triton. This was not anything that was done intentionally on Triton's behalf. They
get no benefit from having a pole than what was approved by the Board. It was an inadvertent mistake,
an inexcusable one. They have worked hard with the Commission and the Board of Supervisors in
establishing a very reasonable pole diameter limit. We had no reason to believe that we could not comply
with it. There was no reason we could not comply with it. It was merely an oversight by the construction
team. This was the first of Triton's eighteen wireless facilities that actually specifically limited the diameter
of the pole. Unfortunately, Triton's construction team was not paying nearly as close of attention to the
plans, which actually included the diameter limits on it, as they should have. As soon as it was made
apparent to us, we moved forward and started considering all of the options. Just in the two years that
she has been working with Triton, they have received approvals for eighteen wireless facilities, sixteen of
which were treetop poles. This is the only situation that they are aware of that a mistake has been made.
They have worked very closely with the staff, Commission and Board to comply with all of these
conditions. As you may recall, several neighbors were involved in the process. They worked very closely
with the neighbors. They provided many helpful comments of which they were appreciative. She noted
that they notified those neighbors of the violation when it was brought to their attention. They notified
them of their intent to file an amendment to the special use permit. They have worked very hard to
continue that close working relationship with them throughout this process. Nevertheless, while this is a
violation, she asked the Commission to consider this in light of larger circumstances. One is that the
violation is of less than a foot at the base and of less than one-half a foot at the top of the pole. The
difference in the built versus approved diameter at the base of the pole is 9.19 inches and at the top is 5.4
inches. In addition, she had submitted some photographs with the application, which were not included in
the packet. The photographs of the facility were taken in early January from Tillman Road. This is the
only place off -site that the base of the pole could be visible. She distributed some photographs for the
Commission's review and consideration. The photograph shows that this pole was sited within a grove of
many large trees on a vacant parcel that is heavily wooded. Despite the fact that it was built larger than it
was approved to be built, it does continue to blend in very well with the surrounding trees. Again, she
also has a signed and stamped drawing from one of Triton's engineers demonstrating the relative
diameters of the pole comparing what was approved to what was actually built. Mr. Wilcox, one of the
neighbors, sent you copies of a similar exhibit. She noted that she had used his idea because it was
persuasive. They asked their engineers to look at what the difference was in the diameter. She noted
that there were two pictures. This picture shows the approved diameter of the pole in the middle. The
outside is the size it was actually constructed. She noted that they were scaled drawings. The third
factor that she hoped they would factor into their consideration is that Triton did not immediately file to
amend the special use permit. The first response she gave was to replace the pole. In responding to the
issue, she has learned a lot about the construction process. In Triton's perspective, it was just
unfortunately not that easy. There is a significant cost factor involved. She realized that was not the
Commission's focus or concern. If Triton replaces the pole, they will have, in essence, a worthless pole.
It is too large to be used in Albemarle County due to the new condition that limits the pole diameter. It is
not tall enough to be used in other locations that they are aware of. That has a significant expense.
Triton estimates about $52,000 associated with the construction expenses of taking down the existing
pole and replacing it with a new one. In fact, they are not sure if they can actually do that in the very tight
quarters that they are working with and protect all of the trees that are in that area. She noted that Mr.
Finocchi could elaborate on those issues. Contrary to her initial opinion, it was not so easy just to take
down a pole that was already there and put a new one in. The existing grade was very steep area. The
wireless policy speaks to visibility as the most important factor. She felt that they would agree when she
distributed the photographs. While this pole was built with a slightly larger diameter than was approved
by the Board, the larger diameter does not exasperate or add any adverse impact on the visibility. It is
only visible from certain locations. Again, she would argue that does not exasperate the pole's visibility,
particularly when it is viewed from a distance. She hoped that when they look at all of these issues
together that they would feel it was reasonable to grant this request.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 157
Dale Finocchi, with Suncom Triton PCS, was present to speak for the request
Mr. Thomas asked if the top of the pole was 23 inches and was it in sections.
Mr. Finocchi stated that typically when they are constructed in 40-foot sections, you would have two 40-
foot sections and then one residual section with the rest of the diameters on the top.
Mr. Thomas asked if it was possible to change the top.
Mr. Finocchi stated that was not necessarily any easily than dismantling the whole thing. In order to do
that, you would have to dismantle the entire top apparatus. The top part was where the antennas are and
would have to be removed. The coax runs through the middle and would have to be detached and pulled
down. The top section would have to be taken off, and then one could be manufactured to fit over it. The
diameter would have to be tapered, which might look a little odd. If you were talking about five inches,
you would not be able to change the diameter of that second section so it would fit on that. It would be
tapered more dramatically than the existing pole. It would come up and then go up.
Mr. Thomas asked if the pole would be below the tree level.
Mr. Finocchi stated that probably that was something that could be done.
Mr. Finley asked if the attachment was an as -built drawing and shows the diameters as they presently
are.
Mr. Finocchi asked if it was stamped.
Mr. Finley stated that there was a stamp on there, but it did not have a date. He asked if the present pole
was 39 inches at the base and 23 inches at the top.
Mr. Finocchi stated that was correct.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were other questions for the applicant. He noted that there was one
person, Mary Jan Devais, who was listed on the sign-up sheet to speak. He asked if she would like to
address the Commission.
Mary Jane Devais stated that she owned the property just to the east. Actually, she was glad to hear the
comments from the Triton people. There were some things that made her uneasy about the specs not
being followed. She felt a lot better knowing that it was an inadvertent mistake. She questioned whether
this happened accidentally on purpose or what. She stated that if the reason for using the metal
monopole is because it was easier to install and so forth, then it seems like it would also be easier to
install the correct size. She did not see why that would necessarily mean taking out more trees. So the
bottom line is that she agreed with staff's original recommendation and reasoning. Therefore, her
preference would be that it conforms to the original specs.
Harvey Wilcox stated that he was opposed to the request. In your packets, you have my statement as
well as some colored photographs. He noted that there were 21 other households on Turner Mountain
who also urge you to deny the request. He could not convey the dismay and disbelief in the
neighborhood that Triton has the brass to come in here and simply act as if nothing has happened in this
error. Two years ago, you agreed with us that the first site for this tower was not good. You told them to
try again, find a new site, and work with the neighbors, which they did. Last spring and during the middle
of the summer, there were many meetings. They were concerned about the height and the dimensions of
this thing. We were also concerned about its girth and its visibility as a fat pole and about the expansion
capability of a fat pole. They told us that we were worrying about trefoils. You have a copy of a
photograph they gave us at a neighborhood meeting on 23 May showing how skinny it was going to be.
He passed out copies of the approved drawing BZ-5, which was their final drawing to the County that
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 158
showed how this tower was going to be built. As specified, he circled the dimensions on the drawing of
approximately 25 inches at the base and 10 inches at the top. They were worried about the word
approximately, but the Commission pinned it down to a maximum of 30 inches and 18 inches. They
withdrew their objections because they felt that they had done their jobs. They did what you asked them
to do. They did not want the tower in their neighborhood, but they felt that they had worked out a bunch
of conditions and compromises that they could deal with and put it in the County's hands. They were
relying on the County to make Triton do the same. Triton would have you believe that the monster that
they have put up is no more visible than what you authorized. He stated that he had not seen Ms. Long's
version of his chart, but he trusted that it was accurate, as he believed his was. She focuses on the
maximum size that you authorized. She does not focus conveniently on the size that they proposed to
build at 25 inches. In that case, what they have up there has a visible profile more than 78 percent larger
than what they told us that they were going to give us. This cell phone case does not involve the
telecommunications act in the slightest. This is a breach of contract situation pure and simple. They
should abate the violation and switch the pole. They really feel aggrieved in this circumstance. They
have done their best to cooperate, and then have this inadvertence occur. He hoped that the County
would send a message that in the County that we think that contractors ought to live up to their promises.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were other persons present to speak.
Margaret Jest, secretary of the Glenaire Neighborhood Association, stated that they represent more than
60 households who are located just west of the Tillman's Road tower. She pointed out that they could
see the top of the tower from a number of households in Glenaire. In fact, this winter when she looked
across the street from her front yard and saw the tower outlined against the sky, she did wonder if they
had been more than a little bit gullible last summer. Among other options, they had agreed to test the
neighborhood impact of the tower by going to a demonstration. With the trees in full leaf, the crowd
gathered to see just how visible this tower might be with a balloon struck up in the trees to show us where
it would go. The red balloon could only be seen at certain angles and from certain locations. It was not
generally visible with all of the leaves out on the trees. It was not a child's balloon. They stood around in
the yards and said well if the impact is no more than what they could see with this balloon, and then they
really should be able to work with these people. When they finished the permitting process, they felt that
they had reached a situation they could live with. In the fall when the leaves were off the trees, the tower
does appear to loom and is noticeable against the skyline. She thought it was just because it was the
real tower and the leaves were off the trees causing the skyline to be more visible than in the summer. It
never occurred that the tower was a lot fatter that what they had been told it would be in the summer. It
was only later that she had learned that the tower was fatter than it was suppose to be and it does not
make it any less visible. She wondered who made the largest mistake in this process. Should they have
delayed the demonstration? We feel very strongly that the Commission should deny this amendment to
the special use permit and order the applicant to build the tower that they said they would build originally.
Mr. Tom Purvis, resident at 742 Tillman Road, passed out a picture of the existing tower with the "View
from the west". He pointed out that the sun reflects off the pole for two hours in the morning and two
hours in the afternoon. It appears that the pole is painted with a semi -gloss paint rather than a flat plat
that would enhance the reflection. In addition, the tree to the left-hand side of the picture is what they
used as a landmark to build this tower. That is to the north of the tower. The tower could be lowered to
not be so noticeable from the treetop. He asked that the Commission consider that.
Mr. Thomas asked how far he was away from the tower when he took the picture.
Mr. Purvis stated that he was approximately 1,500 feet away from the tower in his front yard.
Steven Rubin, resident of 879 Tillman, stated that Triton had said that the tower resembles a tree. He
pointed out that the tower does not resemble a tree that any of us has ever seen. He asked that the
Commission make Triton take the tower down.
Leslie Wilcox, resident of Turner Mountain Road, stated that if an individual homeowner had made a
14OW mistake like this one, the County would make him correct it at his own expense. Last year a near by
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 159
homeowner mismeasured the road setback by eight- and one-half inches when he laid out the foundation
for his new home. After he had built his entire basement, the error becomes apparent. His application for
a variance was denied in large part because the hardship was self-imposed. He was required to jack
hammer up the whole thing, take it apart, and start over. She acknowledged that these cases are
different because that case involved a variance and this one a special use permit. The equities are
similar. She suggested that Triton's special use permit should be revoked for willful noncompliance under
Section 31.2.4, which she has passed out. The people in Triton's business office were directly involved in
working out the conditions of the special use permit. Triton clearly had knowledge of the 30-inch size limit
that affects the bottom and at the top. It is also clear that people in Triton's construction shop and its
subcontractors worked on the outset knowingly building the foundation for a 39-inch pole and then
installing a 39-inch pole. They willfully undertook acts that violated the condition. Triton is responsible
and the appropriate County response may be to revoke its special use permit completely in order to tear
down the entire installation.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environment Council, opposed the granting of the special use permit request. He
stated that when this tower came through this process, he had the pleasure of working with a group of
about 130 citizens to reduce the visibility of the proposed towers through a series of meetings, hearings
and discussions. Now they are being asked to set their entire efforts aside because somebody made an
error. In light of that point alone, he opposed this special use permit. He was troubled about this mistake
because construction details involving construction assemblies are usually not left to chance. When Mr.
Wilcox called me about this tower, he said that the wrong diameter of tower had been shipped and then
installed. He noted that he was troubled by the lack of details on these drawings and how this larger
tower was erected.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for further public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
Dale Finocchi stated that he wanted to address the specific issues about the size and the anchoring. Mr.
Werner was correct in what he said. They needed to get down to the practical aspects of what happened
with the mistake. As you all know, at the time he did not work for Triton. He worked for Crown
Communications as a consultant. In that capacity, his job was to find the location and to guide the site
through the zoning process. After it gets through the zoning process, the way that it was handled was
that it was then handed off to Triton and they handled the construction on their own. They got their plans
and all of the information. What occurred was the normal process that they do when they order a tower
from whatever tower manufacturer that they ordered this particular tower from. What happened was
when they ordered the tower, the person that called the person to order the tower simply told the person
at the manufacturing company what height they needed the tower of. Then that manufacturing company
manufactured the tower to the height. They decided what diameter that it would come out as based on
the height that was requested. That is where it says foundation and tower design by others. So the
normal procedure in ordering a tower, if you are going to order a 200-foot tower or 110-foot tower, you
call up Summit Tower and tell them I need a 111-foot tower. They designed it. They design the
foundation. They tell you when it is ready to be delivered. They send the information with you. That is
what happened. Where the mistake and the disconnect occurred was that nobody said to Summit, we
have to have a tower that is not more than 30 inches at the base and no more than 18 inches at the top.
So to answer his questions, yes the anchor bolts in the tower base are 39 inches because they were put
in specifically for a tower that was the tower ordered specifically for this spot? There is not an issue of
mismatched anchor bolts or an issue of structural problems. What happened was when the tower was
ordered the diameters were not specified. That condition got lost in the transfer of information to all of
those in the process of getting a tower ordered, and built and constructed on the site.
Mr. Loewenstein asked as a follow up on that, when the tower arrived and before it was erected, was
there no on -site inspection by a trade representative that would have brought any of this wrong dimension
issue to light.
Mr. Finocchi stated that on the one set of plans the dimensions were there. He noted that he would not
sit here and make excuses for people who do not even work for me. He was not saying that someone
should not have caught that.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 160
Mr. Loewenstein stated that it was not the issue of whether or not it was made incorrectly, but the issue of
whether it was installed at this site incorrectly.
Mr. Finocchi stated that it was not installed incorrectly as far as the tower that was ordered was installed
properly. Now whether or not somebody caught the blurb on the plans with all of these conditions, he
was not sure. There was a little spot on the plans that said no to exceed the diameter. He did not know if
the field construction manager completely overlooked that or did not see it, he could not answer that
question. He stated that the core of the mistake occurred was in the ordering of the tower in not
specifying that there was a diameter limit.
Mr. Finley asked if normally they exchanged shop drawings when ordering something of this size. He
stated that if they did not receive a copy of his drawing, then he could be liable.
Mr. Finocchi stated that he probably did receive those drawings. However, all he could tell them was that
he was sure that it was an oversight. Certainly, there would have been no reason for them to do this with
any malfeasance. There is no merit to us to do this with any type of malious. There would be no gain
whatsoever. All he could tell them was that typically in the tower business in ordering construction of
these things a diameter is not something that is usually looked at. It is not usually something that is
limited anywhere else.
Mr. Edgerton asked why he agreed to a diameter after all of those meetings, if it was not going to be
followed?
Mr. Finocchi stated that he would not necessarily say that they agreed to it happily.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that it was agreed to in writing. He asked if they saw shop drawings, which was
the usual process.
Mr. Finocchi noted that they were produced.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the shop drawings showed the 39-inch base.
Mr. Finocchi stated no, that the construction drawings.
Mr. Edgerton asked about the shop drawings that came back.
Mr. Finocchi stated that the disconnect was that he was not involved in that process. At that point, it was
a whole different group of people.
Mr. Finley asked if Triton has an engineer that looks at construction and knows what it going in?
Mr. Finocchi stated that they certainly do.
Mr. Finley stated that surely someone should have caught this. He noted that 50 years ago he was doing
this type of work. Even back then they would have looked at shop drawings and double-checked
particularly when you have something that could blow over and cause damage.
Mr. Finocchi stated that all he could tell him that what occurred is that in the construction department who
would be reviewing all of things did not have their hand on the pulse that this was an issue that they
needed to be looking for. That information was not transmitted to them properly. That is where the
mistake occurred.
Mr. Finley agrees that they would have had no motive to willfully do this on purpose.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 161
Mr. Finocchi stated that they certainly would not. This was the first application that they had the limit
applied to it. This happened to be the one that they goofed up. No one since then, there has not been a
problem. We do our very best and try to be very diligent at adhering to all of these conditions. With all of
the people in the process and the number of conditions, it is a tough job to make sure that everything is
done correctly. He noted that he does his best to do that. Now they can do it a little bit differently
because he did work for them now. Through the transition, it was just not there.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Finley stated that since it was such a large amount of money to replace this tower, he wondered if a
portion of the money could be used to hide the tower a little bit more with some plantings.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was struck by the amount of agreement by everybody on what are all of the
critical portions of that. Everybody agrees that it was a mistake. Whether it was a willful mistake or
unintentional he felt that was debatable because a larger pole could be extended to a higher height in the
future. Nevertheless, those things are all irrelevant. Everybody agrees that it is inexcusable. When an
inexcusable mistake is made, it is only reasonable that the recourse for that be brunt by the person who
made the mistake, and not the people who entered into negotiations to try to make this work as well as
possible. This seems very easy to me.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the neighbors have given a lot of valuable time, attention, thought and
valuable input into this project. The staff and the Commission provided considerable input and detail
about what was expected and it seems to me that whether it was an honest mistake or not, it was still a
very large mistake which was not in the public's interest.
Mr. Thomas stated that when someone is in a business and make a mistake, they have to make it good.
We all worked very hard on this tower. He noted that they had four sessions on this to get it to the Board
of Supervisors. He favored having the tower replaced by the specs.
Mr. Rieley stated that if there was any mistake made in the over all process, it would have been in
granting too much flexibility. When the applicant came forward with a proposed 24 inches on the base
and 10 inches on the top, that is what it should have been. They gave an additional 5 inches and got an
additional nine on top of that.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that if they need to apply these conditions consistently. If they allowed this kind
of thing to be rectified simply by abating the violation and changing the rules, then they are doing the
citizens of the community what they have been put here to do.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were a couple of issues that go beyond the denial of this request. One was
raised by Mr. Edgerton in what a wonderful opportunity we have now when we have the real thing on the
ground that is measurable, let's find out how tall it is. Let us do an independent surveyor before the
Board of Supervisors hearing so that they can have the information that we have not had survey those.
The other is, and he did not know what the mechanism for this is, but he was reading a veiled threat
towards some of the existing trees in there if this has to be replaced. Extreme measures need to be
taken to protect those trees. If the trees were not hurt putting in the tower, then there is no excuse for
them being hurt in taking this out and putting in the correct one in there. He hoped that they could get
that in place.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that the record show this so that the Board can have this information when they
hear this request.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that what was approved as a maximum and what was out there now was 69
percent bigger at the bottom and 58 percent bigger at the top. He noted that was substantial if you take a
cross sectional area.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 162
en
Mr. Edgerton agreed with all of the reasons and was not able to support the request. This is an example
of where the community and the developer were supposedly working in good faith and the developer did
not follow through on his commitment. Frankly, he was concerned because the height of the tower was
substantially higher than what was approved by the special use permit. He wanted the height checked
because the trees were there. Just working off the scaled drawings, It appears to be approximately 15 to
20 feet higher than the tallest tree within the 25 foot radius as required by the special use permit. As far
as the accountability, there really is no reason to have a Planning Commission or a Board of Supervisors
if the requirements as mandated in a special use permit are ignored. Whether it was intentional or not
does not make any difference. After having been involved in the construction industry for 25 years, it is
hard to understand how this mistake could have gotten that far without somebody knowing. It does not
matter. The requirements are the requirements.
Mr. Craddock stated that as Mr. Loewenstein mentioned earlier, how many other concerns are there
about this one pole. They have seen a couple pictures where it does not even appear to be painted,
much less worrying about the height being correct. The drawings were of June 4, 2001 that was
approved. These other drawings were approved with a 2002 date. He noted that he could not support
this.
Mr. Finley stated that he could support it for all of the reasons he was saying, but morally he could not
imagine spending $52,000. There would absolutely be no change in performance except the two inches
on the top and the four inches on the bottom on the radius. There should be some way to get that money
to a good use.
Mr. Edgerton moved to recommend denial of the amendment of SP-2002-004 for Bright -Triton PCS.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
The motion for denial was approved (5:1). (Finley — No)
Mr. Finley stated that he voted no for non -technical reasons
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Board of Supervisors would hear this request on May 15cn
The Board recessed for 10 minutes at 8:10 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
SUB 2002-048 Highlands 2C Preliminary Plat - Request for preliminary plat approval to create 52 lots,
for single family detached dwellings, on 16.656 acres. The property is zoned R-4 Residential. The
property, described as Tax Map 57A Block 1 Parcel A is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on
Three Notch'd Road [Route #240] approximately1.5 miles from the intersection of Route #240 and Crozet
Ave. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density, which recommends 3-
6 dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Doherty presented the staff report. (See attached staff report.)
She noted that one condition of approval was added as result of a request from the neighborhood was
that they do screening along the lots that beck up to Route 240 along lots 9 through 36. She noted that
was condition 1 b. She noted that this would not be here if an adjacent owner had not voiced an
objection. There are no waiver or critical slope issues.
SPEAKERS FOR REQUEST:
Kirk Kloeckner, representative for Kloeckner Engineering, stated that they would answer any question.
He noted that they agreed with the conditions. Mr. Farrer was the contract purchaser and was here to
answer any questions.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 163
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was anyone else present to speak on this matter. There are two names
listed on the sign up sheet to speak, He asked Mr. Loch to come forward.
Tom Loach, resident of Crozet, voiced objections over the placement of the homes with their rear ends
towards Route 240, which could best be described as butt ugly. This design certainly falls under the
same designation as the design submitted for Greyrock, which was described as the architecture
equivalent to mooning. One could only assume that the developer did not hear the comments made by
the Planning Commission last time when this proposal was presented. When you told them to take it
back and do it right, they thought you said take it back and do it by -right. He asked if the entire idea of
developing the neighborhood model to improve the architectural form within our growth areas. Isn't good
architectural form one in which you do not have to shield design? Should not landscaping architecture in
Albemarle County be more than just big trees. If you drive down Route 240, across from the proposed
building site you will see homes all oriented towards the streets. Route 240 is the entrance corridor to
Crozet. They like to turn their best sides to our neighbors and not our backsides. When you take this
proposal and put it in context with Clover Lawn and the Bargamin rezoning, what you effectively are going
to do is to kill the neighborhood model in Crozet. Instead of nurturing this infant process we call the
neighborhood model, this will end up poisoning the well.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the next speaker on the sign up sheet was Bev Urgenbright.
Bev Urgenbright stated that she was responsible for bringing this issue up for review. She noted that she
lived across the road from this development. Her family owned the adjacent property of the whole stretch
of this area. Last Wednesday they met with Mr. Carter to discuss the plans for this tract of land. They
found him very receptive to our concerns. On the plus side, Mr. Carter's development follows the contour
of land permitting fewer disturbances to the earth, less environmental elements, pollution from dust from
grading and has also agreed to work with my family to control the blowing of dust during the grading of
this property. Mr. Carter said that the houses would be designed to be like those at Stone Gate that they
find to be quite attractive. He said that he would make the buffer zone denser than areas on the north
side of Route 240 for the property owners being affected by the back door views. This was a meaningful
suggestion, but to the contrary we must give up our view of the south mountains to trees to block the back
doors and in some cases where rooftops will block the mountain view for homes on the north side of
Route 240 and the general public in route to and from Crozet. We must keep in mind that this is an
entrance corridor coming off Route 250 and it is the entrance to Crozet. The future of appearance of this
entrance is in the palm of the Planning Commission's hand. In addition, some other issues need to be
addressed. Has land from this development been dedicated to the widening of Route 240? The need to
widen the road will result from the growth. On the other hand, do we wait and in the future jam the road
up to the back doors of these homes or take away more land from the rural area. Highlands needs a
common area to take care of their pets. The area that Mr. Carter is trying to develop right now is actual
the bathroom for the dogs because Highlands does not have a common area.
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, noted his concerns about DISK and DISK2 of which he
was a member. He encouraged the people in Crozet to stay enthusiastic about the neighborhood model.
He stated that there were 12 projects racing to beat the masterplan. He feared the cumulative impact of
the addition of new houses here and there. With the additional of a few houses here and there, he felt
that there would an impact on the proposed neighborhood model.
Mr. Loewenstein closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rieley stated that based on the staff report, they did not have the capacity to make this better. They
were a victim of this zoning.
He agreed with Mr. Loch that house should not front on Route 250.
That is not within this Board's purview in this application.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the only way would be if there were a subdivision ordinance requirement that
addressed or required residential or orientation.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 164
Mr. Rieley stated that one of the frustrations of being on this Commission is when it is generally assumed
that we can make things better and we do not have the capacity to do that. We are the victim of the
existing zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that was a frustration that staff has. They know and have identified in fact a
schedule for you and the Board in what needs to be done. We are actually on schedule but there are
things we need to do that address the subdivision ordinance that should get under way this spring. He
pointed out that the Board has approved two new positions for the department for next year. One of them
was identified specifically to work with Ordinance changes of the type that would apply to subdivision and
zoning provisions. .
Mr. Loewenstein stated that was hearting news, but in the meantime the clock keeps ticking. It is very
unfortunate that they need to implement the master planning in Crozet and by the time we have the staff
to do the work and get the necessary ordinance changes, the other side of the process is moving so
quickly that we won't be able to get the benefit we want as quickly as we want. Frequently a frustration
since Crozet is under the gun because so many development applications out there pending.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that most of these development plans were not subdivisions and site plans that will
actually allow a discretionary decision on your part. The hope that will be a part of the master planning
process. That is what they are telling those people that have those paid proposals on the table. We
know of one that is delayed. The master planning work is now beginning. There is now a consultant that
they have actually met with on the design. That is a frustration for staff as well.
Mr. Loewenstein noted as Mr. Kamptner has confirmed that our action is pretty much a magisterial one.
Mr. Thomas moved to recommend approval of SUB 2002-048, Highlands 2C Preliminary Plat, with the
conditions as recommended by staff.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Please show the area within the rear yard setback of Lots 9, 10 and 11, where mature Bradford Pear
trees exist, as "to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association;"
b. Please provide a landscape plan, which includes the following screening: All double frontage lots
(Lots 9 through 36) shall be screened between the rear of the residences and the public right-of-way.
Screening shall consist of a planting strip, existing vegetation, a slightly opaque wall or fence, or
combination thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent. Where only vegetative screening is
provided, such screening strip shall not be less than twenty feet in depth. Vegetative screening shall
consist of a double staggered row of shrubs planted ten feet on center. Alternate methods of
vegetative screening may be approved by the agent. Where a fence or wall is provided, it shall be a
minimum of six feet in height and plantings may be required at intervals along such fence or wall; and
c. All other reviewing agencies have granted approval.
d. The following items must reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before the final plat
can be recommended for approval. A completed submittal form and application, available at the
Engineering Department, must accompany all submittals. The required number of copies and the
required fees are indicated on the form and application.
a. A stormwater management/BMP plan, computations, and maintenance agreement. The
BMP/stormwater detention basin location will require Engineering approval prior to final
plat approval. This may require the elimination of one or more lots to accommodate an
approved basin location;
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002 165
cm
All drainage easements must be shown on the final plat;
C. An erosion and sediment control plan, narrative and computations;
d. A stream buffer mitigation plan; and
e. Road plans and computations.
New Business.
Resolution of Intent to amend both Sections 114-203, Fees, of the Subdivision Ordinance and Section 35,
Fees, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner handed out two resolutions of intent concerning fees. He asked the Commission to
consider both of the resolutions of intent in order that the fee regulations could be amended. The Board
of Supervisors authorized a 25 percent increase in fees and was hopeful that they would be in place by
July 1st. The zoning text amendments need to be processed.
Mr. Rieley moved to approve both resolutions of intent concerning the amendment of fees.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that for the next two weeks there will be work sessions on Albemarle Place. Next
Tuesday, April 30, the work session will begin at 4:00 p.m. He noted that the City Planning Commission
has been invited to attend both work sessions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that staff update the guidelines on the back of the agenda to include the sign in
sheets.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would take care of it.
Mr. Edgerton asked staff to be prepared to answer questions concerning Kay Slaughter's letter about
Albemarle Place.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would give brief information on that, but noted that it was standard practice
for developers to make their submittals to the Corp. He noted that staff would provide what information it
can.
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
V. Wayne Cili
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2002