HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 06 2002 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
August 6, 2002
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 6, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Members attending were Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton;
William Finley; Tracey Hopper; Pete Craddock and William Rieley, Vice -Chairman.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Steven
Biel, Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Loewenstein invited public comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being
none, the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda:
SDP-2002-056 King Family Vineyards Farm Winery Plan Waiver — Request to construct a
5,750 sq. ft. winery on approximately 155 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Parcel 80 is additionally
zoned FH, Flood Hazard Overlay District. (Yadira Amarante) — Tax Map 055, Parcels 80 & 81
SDP-02-070 Westminster Canterbury Guardhouse Minor Site Plan Amendment — Angled
Parking Modification (Stephen Waller) — Tax Map 078, Parcel 55A(6)
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes - June 25, 2002, July 2, 2002 and July 9, 2002
Ms. Hopper moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0) (Edgerton — absent).
Item Requesting Deferral:
SP-2002-022 20 South Kitchen - Request for special use permit to allow a Home Occupation,
Class B for a catering business, in accordance with Section 10.2.2(31) of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for Home Occupations Class B. The property, described as Tax Map 102, Parcel
17E, contains 65 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the east side of
Route 20 north of its intersection of Route 708 at 1138 Roundtop Farm. The property is zoned
RA Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural Area. (Steven Biel)
DEFERRED FROM THE JULY 9, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Biel presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) The applicant, Mr.
Pierce McCleskey, has requested approval of a special use permit for a Home Occupation Class
B to allow for the operation of a catering kitchen of 968 square feet. The site is located at 1138
Roundtop Farm. The proposed kitchen would be used to prepare food for off -site events. Mr.
McCleskey shops for his own food supplies at local markets and plans on growing his own fruits
and vegetables to be used in food preparation. There will be limited deliveries to the site that
would not provide a noticeable increase in traffic. At this time Mr. McCleskey does not plan to
have employees on site, but would frequently employee contract workers for the off -site events.
Under the definition of a Home Occupation, Class B, Mr. McCleskey would be limited to no more
than two employees at the proposed kitchen. The parcel where the proposed kitchen will be
located contains 65 acres and is heavily wooded. The parcel is adjacent to the Carter's Bridge
Agricultural Forestal District and has been reviewed by the Agricultural/Forestal Committee with a
recommendation to approve the application. Mr. McCleskey's parents own and reside on the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 6, 2002 342
property and Mr. McCleskey has recently moved into a second residence that is located on the
property which satisfies the requirement that the proprietor must live on the premises while
conducting the proposed activity. The location of the proposed kitchen is in the center of the
property and would not be visible from adjoining properties. Attachment B shows the location of
the proposed kitchen and residences. The applicant has been in contact with the Health
Department and must satisfy all requirements from the Health Department as noted in condition
three of the conditions of approval. The Zoning Department, Engineering Department and VDOT
have no issues of concern with this application other than the Zoning Department's reference to
the residency issue, which has been satisfied. This proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and with the character of the Rural Areas. By
growing some of the produce used in his business, Mr. McCleskey's proposed use is supportive
of agricultural uses. Staff recommends approval of SP-2002-022 subject to the three conditions
listed in the staff report. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. He noted
that Mr. McCleskey was present.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the
public hearing on SP-2002-022 and asked if the applicant would like to make a statement.
SPEAKER FOR REQUEST:
Mr. Pierce McCleskey, applicant, stated that he did not have anything to add, but would be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was any one else present to speak concerning this request. There
being none, he closed the public hearing and brought the matter before the Commission for
discussion and action.
Mr. Thomas moved to recommend approval of SP-2002-022, 20 South Kitchen, subject to the
three recommended conditions as follows:
1. There shall be no on -site sales.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials.
3. All requirements of the Health Department shall be satisfied.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (6:0) (Edgerton — absent).
Mr. Loewenstein stated that SP-2002-022 was approved and would go before the Board of
Supervisors on September 4cn
Mr. Edgerton arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Public Hearing Items:
CPA-01- 04 Albemarle Place — Change the land use designation in the County Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Plan from Industrial Service to Regional Service for Parcels 19A and 19B of Tax
Map 61 W, Section 3 to support an eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial to PUD, Planned
Unit Development, for the purposes of creating a mixed residential, office, and commercial
development. (Michael Barnes)
Due to Mr. Barnes' absence, Mr. Benish presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the
staff report.) He stated that CPA-01-04, Albemarle Place, is a proposal to amend the
Comprehensive Plan's land use designation for 62 acres of land that is located west of Route 29
and extends from Hydraulic Road to the existing Comdial site. The property is bordered on the
west by residences along Commonwealth Drive. Essentially it is the undeveloped area around
the Sperry Marine site. The proposal is to change the land use designation from its current
designation of Industrial Service to Regional Service. The amendment would support a future
rezoning request to change the zoning from LI, Light Industrial to a Planned Development for the
purposes of creating a mixed use, commercial office and residential development. In that sense,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 6, 2002 343
the comprehensive plan amendment is the first step in the development review process for the
mixed -use project. The proposed project at this time is intended to total 1.7 million square feet
consisting of approximately 730,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and theater, 700,000 square
feet of residential and approximately 259,000 square feet of office and 78,000 square feet of
hotel. Those are rounded numbers. The Planning Commission will make its recommendation on
the request to the Board of Supervisors. If the Board approves the comprehensive plan
amendment, the next step in the process would be the rezoning process, which is the zoning map
amendment process. Should that be approved, the last and final step would be site plan and
subdivision plat review and approval. The Planning Commission has reviewed this
comprehensive plan amendment at four work sessions. The first meeting began in April of 2001.
Two of those work sessions have been joint City/County Planning Commission work sessions.
The information that has been provided to you in your packet consists of a staff report that
includes the recommended language for the comprehensive plan amendment. It also includes
attachments A through E. The second is a letter from the Department of Environmental Quality
which is in response to a public comment from the Southern Environmental Law Center regarding
treatment of streams on site. Staff has included these letters to provide the Commission some
background on the stream protection issue that the Commission has discussed. Staff does
recommend approval of this comprehensive plan amendment that includes the language that is in
the attached staff report. He stated that he would only cover some of the major issues that have
been discussed, including a call for the development of an integrated transportation system plan
for the area that includes the superblock area that they refer to here and extends to the City. This
encompasses an area from Greenbrier Drive to the 250 By -Pass and from Georgetown Road to
the Meadowcreek area to the east. The comprehensive plan amendment also provides for land
use recommendations for this superblock area including the encouragement of protecting or
preserving the existing industrial businesses within the area. It provides for design standards that
apply to the superblock that includes not only the property in question, but also the other
properties included within that superblock for recommendations regarding public space, public
facilities, amenities, environmental protection and, again, land use. He stated that the applicant
was present and had a brief presentation to make. Also, Harrison Rue, the Director of Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, is here and can respond to questions regarding their
organization's efforts in the planning for this area to address the transportation issues.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any questions for Mr. Benish.
Mr. Rieley asked a question regarding the July 24th letter to Mr. Slaughter from Mr. Chuney. The
beginning of the third paragraph, he starts, "In our conversation with Albemarle County officials,
we were advised that the County was in support of the proposed project and would likely grant
the rezoning request to allow the project to proceed." He asked if this has been voted on since
he was not aware of any official action taken by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Benish stated that there has been no action taken, but noted that he actually had the same
question from other people who have been involved in this process. He stated that he did not
think they have indicated any action, and obviously the Commission and the Board have not
taken any action.
Mr. Rieley stated that was what was troubling about this. He noted that you worry about the
degree to which that preface then influences all of the analysis that follows because if the entire
project is a forgone conclusion, then it hovers it in a way that it was different than it might be
otherwise.
There being no additional questions for Mr. Benish, Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing
on CPA-01-04 and asked the applicant to come forward.
1146.1 SPEAKERS FOR REQUEST:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 344
Frank Cox, applicant, stated that several members of their development team were here tonight
that includes Ron Farrin, from Chicago; Jack Tackert, from Florida; and Bruce McCloud, Co -
Developer from New York City. He thanked staff for placing them back on the agenda
subsequent to the June 18th meeting. He stated that they have reviewed the changes in staffs
wording and he wanted to communicate from their perspective, as they have studied it carefully,
that they would like to see staffs recommendation along with the modification to the wording in
the comprehensive plan amendment language be moved forward to the Board of Supervisors. He
felt that it gave them a platform upon which they could take what he felt was a good document
from a planning standpoint and develop the pictures that will compliment the words that will be in
the document that would be inclusive in your action on this. He stated that they have had a
chance over the last month to follow a number of things that have been in the media. He stated
that he was sure that staff was concerned with the recent activity regarding the integrated
transportation system study proposal. As early as 24-months ago when they had met with the
City, they had indicated their willingness to provide input in traffic and transportation. Also, about
three months ago they represented at a meeting of VDOT/City/County staff that their group
certainly had a vested interest in the Route 29 corridor transportation improvements. He noted
that at this particular moment in time it was nearer and dearer to their hearts than some of you.
He stated that they have affirmed not only to the senior staff at VDOT/City and County level, but
also to represent this to the Planning District Commission that they were all for and supportive of
any ongoing transportation evaluation or studies that would be moving forward. He noted that
their team has invested close to a quarter to a million dollars in traffic and transportation studies
over the last two years. They feel that gives a good grounding to anyone that will pick up and do
an unbiased review and a series of recommendations for an integrated system. He stated that
their development team affirms that short of an integrated transportation system, no one is going
to come out on the winning side of this. They were willing to be a part of that and will participate
to the extent that he has communicated with both the PDC and the staff. He stated that they
were really looking forward to moving into the zoning phase of this. He stated that the questions
that they could answer through a comprehensive plan amendment and the contributions that they
could make and the materials, which they could provide, they have done so. The additional
information that is going to be desirous to you is the ability to get down to the brass tacks of the
new urbanism is something that will unfold but will take time. There will be negotiations galore.
There will be geographical things to discuss and they need to be attended to by Engineering and
the master plan with very specific transportation planning studies. He stated that they were
certainly ready, willing and prepared to engage in those once we are able to move beyond the
comprehensive plan amendment stage. He stated that they appreciated all the energy and work
that they had put into this. He noted that David and Michael had done an extraordinary job in
moving us in a direction that he felt was more consistent with what you are looking for. He felt
that the wording of the staff report is developed and opens up an opportunity as we get down to
the brass tacks of trying to separate what you indicate as the good part of the south and the
lesser part on the north. He stated that they want to come forward with some options and some
ways to skin that cat. He stated that it was extremely important for them to have the opportunity
to have that discussion through the rezoning process. He acknowledged that all of his team
members were here to answer any questions.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the first speaker on the list is Bob Cross.
Bob Cross, a resident of Bradford Lane in western Albemarle County, stated that the reason he
was present was that he and his wife own three townhouses on Commonwealth Avenue that
back up to the proposed development. The tenants in their units were a mixture of graduate
students and professionals. They in common value the security and privacy of their back yards of
which this will have some impact. He noted that he was aware of the ten -foot retaining wall that
would be built in the back of the project. He pointed out that the elevations of the townhouses on
Commonwealth Drive are greater than the elevations in the proposed development. With this in
mind, he would like to express great concern with point ten of the proposed design language.
The point says that projects should provide vegetation to buffer and screen uses on adjacent
properties. He stated that his opinion was that this would not provide adequate buffering for the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 345
units near the anchor retail store. He stated that these stores would have significant traffic
volume and deliveries perhaps at all hours. He stated that something like a combination of
vegetation and privacy fences might be more appropriate for these particular areas. With a
detailed look at the elevations, it might well be possible that the complete rear of the project
should have privacy fences. He recommended that the wording in point ten be changed to
provide an appropriate buffering to screen uses on adjacent properties with the current form that
you have. The appropriateness of a buffer would vary depending on whether or not the units are
closer to the anchor store and perhaps are located in the center of the project next to some of the
residential units. He noted the simple point regarding buffering that one size does not fit all in
situations like this. He also requested that the Commission require the developers as part of this
project to provide detailed elevations of at least 3 points along Commonwealth Avenue. The
people who live along Commonwealth Drive need to be able to thoroughly evaluate how this
project will effect their use. As you recall, the ARB only looks at development from the view of the
Entrance Corridor. He requested that their input be considered into how this development will be
viewed from these properties.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the next speaker was Jeff Werner.
Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that the PEC supports
the concept of mixed -use infill development in the urbanized area. Subsequently, they support
any comprehensive plan amendment that tends to employ the Neighborhood Model. It is not the
specifics of this project as have been presented in support of the comprehensive plan
amendment that they wish to comment on. In all honesty, the specific use that appears to be in
the works to follow this broader comprehensive plan amendment is for a regional -scale shopping
center and its characterization. So forth, as a center for Neighborhood One is not the result of a
community planning process, nor is that process referred to in the comprehensive plan
amendment. However, the extent to which the later, specific proposal ultimately applies the
principle and process of the Neighborhood Model will guide our comments when that time comes.
He wanted to address this comprehensive plan amendment, which they will agree to interpret for
now as a positive effort to promote mixed -use infill, must clearly outline a length between land
use and transportation planning. To truly be a smart project, the two cannot be separated. Any
suggestion that the transportation problems on Route 29 are — or can be- unrelated to this or any
other local land use issue is false. Granted the intersection of Hydraulic and Route 29 is already
a mess. But the fact does not remove the off -site transportation issue through the discussion of
this comprehensive plan amendment. This community has long debated the transportation
issues on Route 29 and, though they would like to ignore them, VDOT's own studies show that
the problems on Route 29 are due to local traffic. Besides the Downtown Mall and Barracks
Road Shopping Center, 29 North is our local commercial corridor. For this reason the
preponderance of traffic on Route 29 is local and it will continue to be until nobody shops there,
works there, etc. In that light, it is in the interest of this proposal that resolving this local
transportation issue be addressed. It is safe to assume that this developer would like people to
be able to get to this project. In fact, it is difficult to image why any owner of commercial property
within the corridor would wish for that traffic to go away. With that said, it is entirely appropriate
for this comprehensive plan amendment to fully address the need to examine - - and require the
implementation of -- traffic solutions at this and other approximate intersections. If ignored, the
term smart will not be applicable to any project proposed on this Sperry site no matter how
innovative the site might be. Mr. Werner presented a handout.
Bruce Appleyard, AICP, Transportation and Land Use Planner for the Southern Environmental
Law Center, stated that how Albemarle Place is ultimately designed and developed, and how it
integrates with the surrounding community, is critical to the future of our region. He stated that he
would like to address three primary points: the scale of this development, traffic impacts and the
wetland impacts. First, SELC supports the DISC Neighborhood Model and its purpose of
preserving the environment and lowering the amount of driving generated by development by
creating appropriately scaled, mixed use, pedestrian -friendly communities. While this
1%W1 comprehensive plan amendment has many positive elements, we are concerned that the ultimate
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 6, 2002 346
development will be out of scale with the adjacent community and be predominately big box retail
relying on automobile travel. He noted for further information, he passed out a letter that he wrote
to the editor of the Daily Progress that outlined the directions in which they should grow. The
growth should compliment and enhance the surrounding community. Consistent with the process
described in the Neighborhood Model, we recommend that more emphasis be placed on
coordinating this project with the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. Some likely changes
should include language ensuring that this development does not turn its back on Hydraulic Road
and that it incorporates neighborhood -oriented retail and parkland. Our second major concern is
how traffic generated on this site will affect the surrounding community. We support language in
the comprehensive plan amendment calling for an integrated transportation system including the
creation of the Hillsdale Drive Connector. We have strong reservations, however, about any
additional at -grade crossings along Route 29, even temporary ones, as these will exacerbate the
congested condition of the 29 corridor. We strongly support your efforts to coordinate this
development with automobile alternatives, such as transit, walking and biking, including your
request that the developer fund a share of the construction cost for grade -separated crossings for
walkers and bikers. Along these lines, we request that you more strongly state the need for a
grade -separated crossing for all modes at Hydraulic and 29 and that developers of this site play a
proactive role in its development. We need to recognize that widening will only provide minor and
temporary relief to congestion and yet will only make worse the unsafe condition for pedestrians
and cyclists by increasing their exposure to traffic. Last year on April 24, 2001, at a joint meeting
of the City/County Planning Commissions, he gave a presentation on a report by the nationally
acclaimed traffic engineer, Walker Kulash, proposing a solution to the congestion and unsafe
conditions at the intersection of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. In the report, Mr. Kulash showed
how a grade -separated interchange is absolutely necessary to prevent the total breakdown of
traffic flow at this intersection. VDOT has also recognized the dramatic improvement that such an
interchange would have. For example, VDOT studies show that even if the proposed Route 29
Bypass and the Meadowcreek Parkway were to be built, but not the interchange, the level of
service at this intersection would still be a failing grade of "F" by 2010. By contrast, these same
VDOT studies show that an interchange alone would improve the level of service at the
intersection from an "F" to a "B" (by 2010). He requested additional time to finish his
presentation.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that he be brief in finishing his presentation.
Mr. Applegate stated that in the report, Mr. Kulash also endorsed extending Hillsdale Drive to
Hydraulic Road to provide a better local road network that would accommodate traffic that
currently relies on Route 29. And finally, we are concerned about the wetlands and downstream
impacts. As planned, this project would destroy 3,275 feet of streams and a quarter acre of
adjacent wetlands. The streams are the headwaters of Meadowcreek and the Rivanna River,
which are both designated by the State Department of Environmental Quality as impaired; this
project would simply further degrade the Meadowcreek, which runs through residential
neighborhoods (and also is the site of a walking trail). In order to avoid further degradation and to
protect the adjacent residential neighborhoods, you should seek to preserve the streams and to
minimize impacts on them and the adjacent wetlands. Mitigation, if necessary, should be
conducted in the immediate watershed. We support the language on page 5 but reiterate the
need to preserve the on -site streams, incorporating stormwater treatment into their preservation,
and thereby making these streams part of the development itself. Don't destroy the streams, but
use them to help filter the runoff and as an aesthetic feature to give this development some great
public spaces. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that Mr. Harrison Rue come forward next to speak.
Mr. Harrison Rue stated that he was not prepared to speak, but would be happy to answer
questions about the proposed intersections and the related issues. He stated that he was not
present to comment on the proposed development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 6, 2002 347
Ms. Hopper asked if he could explain the intersection case study in general, the timing and the
issues related to the process.
Mr. Rue stated that he had just given a presentation to the City last night. There have been
thirteen proposals for studies that have focused on the general Route 29 North area over the last
dozen years. Since he has been at the MPO for the last seven months, they have been
discussing the MPO's expressed prioritization of looking at the long discussed series of free
interchanges. They have expanded that in terms of the MPO's expressed priorities to look at all
of Route 29 North to Greene County. They have been talking with VDOT about that for several
years. Therefore, this was nothing new. Coming out of their discussions with VDOT, they were
focusing on something that was doable because they did not have the money to do an entire
corridor plan right now. In coming out of the Unjam workshop with the City, the County and
others, they focused on this particular interchange as something that needs to get looked at right
away. This is partly because of the very discussion that you are having tonight. But, also it was
partly because it is a great place for the City and County to try to plan ahead a little bit and look at
one place where they might be able to help each other to try to solve some of the problems. In
the last two months since the last Unjam workshop, the MPO technical committee has been trying
to work out the scope. The most recent City proposal has been forwarded to you with language
that we have worked on that adds a couple of things. The City has said very clearly if Albemarle
County wants to look at a greater area, then they were willing to go along with it. This proposed
study will be discussed at next month's MPO Policy Board meeting. He noted that they have had
discussions with Mr. Cox and several of the other players, but that their study is not about their
development. The urgency of this certainly is in response to the real proposal before us that will
be adding a lot of traffic to that intersection. We are proposing to do something on what might be
more like a private development 6-month timetable rather than a typical 3-year timetable. He
stated that they were aggressively seeking funding, but that is certainly in terms of what VDOT is
currently able to tell us and is going to be difficult to come up with.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if anyone else had questions?
Mr. Rieley stated that this is an intriguing aspect because of it coming along with this
development proposal. He stated that a question that a lot of us have is how feasible is that
compressed timetable, what are the prospects of the funding and how soon will they have a
realistic answer.
Mr. Rue stated that if they were able to get the funding to proceed and fund it through MPO, they
could assemble a team and run it locally with VDOT's participation, then he felt that a 6-month
time period was reasonable. He noted that since he comes from the private sector as a
consultant, that he was used to doing things faster. He stated that he was highly optimistic about
the funding, but could not make promises for the MPO Policy Board since he was speaking only
as a staff member. He felt that they all would endorse the project and additional ideas to it. He
noted that the scope has not been to the Policy Board for its first reading. He stated that they
have a new Commonwealth Transportation member who is very enthusiastic in trying to help, but
he was aware of the existing budgetary shortfalls. He noted that they were also looking to private
sector interests and other interests as well. He stated that he could not make any promises, but
they would be actively pursuing it over the next month. He believed that they would know
whether or not they have some portion of the funding to go ahead in the next month or so.
Mr. Thomas asked on the schedule of other matters that are on the burner, if he had any idea of
what effect or what impact this study will have on the Hillsdale Project and the Meadowcreek
Parkway.
Mr. Rue stated that they clearly wrote this in scope with the cooperation of both the City and
County staff to specifically include Hillsdale Drive since they knew it was a priority project. They
wanted to make sure that when they look at the whole area that they are not only assuming that
Hillsdale Drive is there but that the traffic impact is considered. One of the key elements for this to
1'40W work would be the sequence of construction and phasing. Therefore, the completion of Hillsdale
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 348
Drive would be a key piece of making sure they are able to maintain a construction phasing
sequence. The Meadowcreek Parkway and the traffic studies that they do for this should assume
that is constructed since it is in the pipeline, and from near as he could tell they have the funding.
He stated that he did not think that their study area would go that far.
Mr. Benish stated that he would circulate a copy of that proposal.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for comments.
Mr. Rieley stated that they have heard some excellent comments on several issues that have
been echoed in some of the concerns raised over the course of the work sessions. He stated
that he was particularly taken by the opportunity of making use of the initiative of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission and the MPO to fill as he saw as the big missing piece of
this puzzle. He stated that they have been saying work session after work session what about
the transportation piece and how they could possibly endorse a development proposal when they
did not know what the impacts would be. He felt that staff has made an earnest effort to address
that in the language. He read 4a; any development around major intersections should contribute
towards the necessary infrastructure improvements and set aside sufficient right-of-way to
accommodate the ultimate improvements for these intersections as dictated by the integrated
traffic management system plan. He stated that was true, but that they also have to acknowledge
that making accommodations for those improvements is going to be easier if they know what
those improvements are. He stated that if Mr. Rue had said that this was a process that was
going to take 18 months, then he would not be inclined to say that they should defer action on
this. He felt that they should give themselves time to thoughtfully incorporate some of the
comments that they have heard tonight. Also, they should give Mr. Rue, the MPO and the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission the opportunity to see if they can move this
ahead on a schedule that makes sense for everyone. He stated that he hoped that they could
buy a little time to see if they could make all of this work together. He stated that most of them,
as Mr. Werner had said, acknowledge that this is a positive effort to bring mixed -use development
to a place in which it makes sense. He noted that this is an opportunity to work cooperatively to
really get it right.
Mr. Thomas agreed that this is an opportunity to improve or correct a situation that has been
looked at so many times, but that nothing has been done. He hoped that something could now
be done to improve that entire strip since it was only getting more congested each day.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was not suggesting by any means that this problem has to be fixed
before this project can move ahead. He suggested that they have a clearer understanding of
what that solution is likely to be so that this proposal can more clearly dovetail with it. He stated
that the big question marks involve things like egress and facades of buildings relative to the
streets. He pointed out that they don't know where the streets are going to be.
Mr. Thomas stated that a key point would be street locations.
Mr. Edgerton endorsed Mr. Cross's concern about the language since he did not think that would
be an appropriate amendment to change the language of item 3 to include a statement about an
appropriate buffer. He agreed that it was hard to know what that buffer would be until they know
what the plan will be. He noted that the transportation issues keep coming up again an again,
which continues to be his greatest concern. He stated that he was very excited about the
concept of the project, but with the current infrastructure the community cannot absorb this
pro�ect without resolution of the transportation issues. He noted that at their last meeting on the
18' , he had asked the question whether the developer would be willing to contribute not only for
the right-of-way, but also financially to the solution for the transportation improvements. He
questioned whether this question was appropriate at this time. He noted that if they don't have
the money to do this, then it could be put on hold for years. He stated that if they approve the
project and the improvements don't occur, then they would have bigger problems. The issue of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 6, 2002 349
09
scale that was mentioned is an appropriate one, and as an architect he felt it could be addressed
in a final plan a little more responsively than is evident on the site plan drawings. The issue of
wetlands is very confusing because they have been assured by staff that the wetlands and
streams are not of consequence and yet the Southern Environmental Law Center continues to tell
us that they are of consequence. He questioned how they should factor that into their
discussions. He stated that he was personally enthusiastic about what was being proposed, but
that there are a lot of issues that have to be addressed. He concurred with Mr. Rieley's comment
that they should not be rushed into this if in fact they can begin to address questions about the
transportation issues within a six-month period. He felt that it would be worth deferring making a
commitment on this until they have at least that point addressed.
Mr. Craddock favored the overall concept of the southern section of this development, but not the
northern section. He stated that this might be the push to get that intersection taken care of. He
stated that the SELC proposal for the overpass indicates that not an undue amount of right-of-
way would be needed. He stated that as a long time resident of the area, he would be excited to
see the Hydraulic Road intersection changed for the better. He supported the delay.
Ms. Hopper supported the delay as well. She stated that due to the pressure on this issue, they
have this opportunity to have an expedited traffic study that is a joint effort with the City and the
Planning District. In past comprehensive plan amendments, they have incorporated road and
traffic recommendations as specifically as they have been able. She stated that if they don't
delay this to get input from this new traffic study, then they would be missing an opportunity to lay
out and inform specific recommendations that could guide the traffic development in the future.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he was also excited about the opportunities that this application
behind this comprehensive plan amendment is going to provide. He stated that in general the
development was a really good one for this area, but he had some reservations about certain
aspects of it. He stated that this is the first large-scale application of the Neighborhood Model
since that model was adopted. He noted that this is a highly sensitive location. He noted that it
has been expressed thorough this meeting, that the infrastructure issues are not fully resolved
and would require more detailed development through study. The integrated transportation
system traffic study seems to be an appropriate means of achieving that. He stated that Mr. Cox
stated that they already have a good grounding because of previous work that has been done on
looking at issues around this intersection. He felt that the integrated study should be able to
move forward in a much more efficient manner and more quickly than would be the case
otherwise. He stated that the Kulash and VDOT studies offer an excellent foundation upon which
to base the work of the integrated transportation system study as well. He stated that they were
in general consensus that they should delay or defer taking an action on this comprehensive plan
amendment in order to have the opportunity to be able to incorporate the findings of this new
study and to clear up some other things that have arisen tonight.
Mr. Rieley suggested that they schedule a work session in four weeks to a month to see if that
would allow some time to see how the process is moving ahead. He noted his continued concern
about the schedule and did not endorse an indefinite study period. He noted that would allow the
Commission some time to digest some of the comments that they have heard tonight and try to
find ways to incorporate them into the draft language. He stated that they could work on the
small-scale concerns while waiting on the larger scale information.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that it was a difficult intersection and that three -fourths of the intersection
is located in the City's jurisdiction. He asked that they keep in mind that they were addressing a
project that was going to make profound changes on that intersection and the residents and
businesses of both jurisdictions. He stated that it was to everyone's benefit to delay until this
study can be completed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 350
Mr. Edgerton noted that he heard on the radio coming to the meeting that the City could not come
to a consensus last night. He stated that they did not vote on the policy change last night. He
suggested that they try to schedule the work session so that information could be at hand.
Mr. Finley asked if the work session would change the proposed language.
Mr. Rieley stated that it would at least change the language of the comprehensive plan
amendment.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it would specifically change the language of the comprehensive plan
amendment in what would have to be done with dealing with the transportation issues.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that it was not the land use in and of itself that was really the issue. It is
what infrastructure issues that land use generates.
Mr. Thomas asked if the City did not change their policy to allow interchanges, would this mean
that they could not look at interchanges at that intersection.
Mr. Rieley stated that does not mean that they can't study them, but it clearly would be an
excellent signal that this is something that is a serious study if the City makes that change. He
stated that this was an excellent opportunity for both localities to come together and do something
right for both localities.
Mr. Benish stated that he would like to make a couple of comments and that the applicant would
like to address the Commission. He clarified in their drafting of the comprehensive plan
amendment in number one on page two, that their intent of the language was clearly to imply that
to even begin the next step, which was the rezoning process, we really have to have this study
completed in order to allow them to define perimeters for reservations of right-of-way, what
improvements are necessary and the building orientations. He stated that they could not review
the rezoning until this study was done. He stated that their intent in number one was to allow
them to put the hold on this until this study was done. He noted that was what they were trying to
articulate there. He stated that the traffic study would ultimately depend on the recommendations
for the land use. He stated that at some point in time in this study process there should be an
agreement to specify what those perimeters and assumptions will be. He noted that some time
the perimeters of uses have to be in place. He stated that would be an essential beginning part
that the public is going to look at which would include the density and mix of uses. He stated that
they would make some assumption on what that maximum use would be and make some
conclusions. He stated that they need to be agreeable on what those ranges are. He stated that
in his professional opinion, he was apprehensive about the six-month process because the thing
that concerns him most is not the time to do the study, but the public input process at the end of
that study and the deliberations of that public input process. He stated that if it was something
that was doable, then it was going to have to be done very efficiently. They need to give careful
consideration to public input. He stated that the study itself could be done in six -months. He
stated that the question of time would be what they do with the study after it is completed.
Mr. Rieley stated that they could make whatever use of that information that they wanted to. He
stated that they could act tonight or the day after the study or after another public process. He
stated that they were not tied to any public process.
Mr. Thomas asked what the applicant could do with the property after they recommend the
comprehensive plan amendment. He asked what the difference would be if it was done tonight or
in six months.
Mr. Benish stated that the properties were currently zoned LI and the uses that they have by right
before or after action on the comprehensive plan amendment. If the applicant were to try to
implement the proposed plan, it most likely would require a rezoning to do any portion of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 351
building based on the concept that they have outlined. He noted when they review rezoning
'err requests that they use Comprehensive Plan recommendations to evaluate that rezoning. He
stated that a rezoning could be submitted at any point in time, but it was evaluated based on the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this would depend on how they
evaluated the rezoning as to its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that this
proposal is clearly inconsistent with an Industrial Service designation. He stated that it was
unlikely for any approval. He stated that it would be more consistent with some comprehensive
plan amendment language. A rezoning would be required in either case.
Mr. Finley asked what would be done while they waited for the next work session and what would
be accomplished at that work session proposed for a month from now.
Mr. Rieley stated that he hoped within the next month that they would have the opportunity to
review the comments received tonight and that each person should think about how the language
might be adjusted to incorporate those comments. He noted that he had a list of specific items to
be worked on which included the environmental issues. He stated that the delay would allow the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District some time to move ahead with their process and begin to
give more definite information about the likelihood of the funding schedule. He stated that they
could then try to incorporate this in a more timely way. He felt that a few months would be time
very well spent. He stated that if it turned into years, then he would have a problem.
Mr. Edgerton favored the delay to allow time to hear back from the City concerning these issues.
He favored allowing the time for the City to digest the new ideas that they have received.
Mr. Loewenstein invited comment.
Bruce McCloud stated on behalf of his group that they appreciate all of the time that they have
taken in the work sessions. He stated that they were also concerned with the transportation
issues as everyone else. He stated that this type of project has to be convenient to get into and
out of. Therefore, they were vitally concerned about this. He noted that over the past 12 to 15
months their traffic study has been expanded on four or five occasions and they feel that they
have already done a regional traffic study for this project. He pointed out that they have studied
32 intersections and it was far beyond anything that he has been involved with for a new project.
He stated that it has taken on big dimensions over a long period of time. This is a piece of
property that they own and want to develop it. He stated that they have come in with an
expensive and a desirable plan and most jurisdictions like this concept and would like to see it
developed. He stated that you have this balance of concern to make sure that you are doing all
the right things and the practicalities of moving on with life. He noted that they feel this has been
a rather long period of time, not inappropriately so, but developers are always in a hurry. He
voiced concern about the delay because it was kind of open ended. He stated that the
consensus was don't rush into it, but it was like going into a free fall. He stated that they have
done so much to try to give them the information. The question about the contributions towards
the traffic solutions, they have not said that they would make the right-of-way available, but were
saying that they would be part of the solution financially. He stated that has been made clear and
was the case. They are looking for was a confirmation that they are on the right tract and that
they have the Commission's support. He felt that they have so many conditions in the wording
that they can't move until they get a solution. Therefore, he would say to you without being overly
anxious that they would like to know what they were giving up by giving them the approval to go
forward with the comprehensive plan amendment because they have the whole zoning process to
go through. He noted that everything addressed in there would get addressed under the
language of the comprehensive plan amendment. He stated that they have a long process to go
forward. From their point of view, if they are in suspended animation for the next six months, that
was like adding six months to the beginning of this process. He noted that the point he was
making was if they know they have the Commission's support subject to that, then they know how
to act and go forward and put more money in up front in planning and developing in the work they
`'�✓ are doing on the site. He stated that this has been a long extended process to get to this point.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 352
He felt they have adequate protection in the way this comprehensive plan amendment is written.
He asked that they be allowed to move along.
Ms. Hopper stated that the traffic study would give more opportunity for regional planning. With
the pressure of this development pushing, it has helped to give more specifics to put in the
comprehensive plan amendment for the planning of this whole area and not just this one
application. She noted that they were not worried about the applicant getting out of control, but
worried about the planning for this area.
Mr. Kamptner suggested entertaining a motion to defer the matter to a work session to sometime
late in September for consideration and possible actions.
Mr. Benish stated that he would work on scheduling the work session for the end of September.
He asked that any comments or changes to be made should be provided to staff as soon as
possible. He stated that the MPO would provide information on the status of the funding and the
study of the integrated transportation system study. He stated that he would work with Mr. Rue to
get a date when it would be available. He stated that he would also obtain the information from
the City.
Mr. Rieley moved to carry this matter to a work session at the third or fourth week in September.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Planning Commission deferred action tonight to a work session
which will be held on either the third or fourth week of September to further consider matters
discussed in this public hearing and to hear the City's matters to be discussed on September
16th.
Work Session:
ZTA-02-01 By -right within Floodway — Request to amend Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to permit use of "inert materials" such a rubble, concrete, bricks,
broken bricks, and blocks" in flood -control and environmental restoration projects in the floodway.
(Scott Clark)
Mr. Benish stated that the applicant has requested indefinite deferral of ZTA-02-01.
Mr. Finley moved to allow indefinite deferral of ZTA-02-01, By -right within Floodway, as requested
by the applicant.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which was unanimously (7:0) approved.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was any one else present to speak concerning old business.
There being none, the meeting proceeded.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was any one else present to speak concerning new business.
There being none, the meeting proceeded.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 353
M
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
Wayne Cili¢(berg,
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 6, 2002 354