Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 01 2002 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a worksession on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 235, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Vice -Chairman; Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton; and Pete Craddock. Absent from the meeting were William Finley; Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; and Tracey Hopper. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; and Elaine Echols, Principal Planner. 4:00 P.M. MEETING ROOM # 235: Worksession: ZTA-01-08 Neighborhood Model — Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to modify Section 8 Planned Districts — Generally and to add Section 20A Neighborhood Model Zoning District. (Elaine Echols) The Planning Commission held a worksession on ZTA-01-08. Ms. Echols made a presentation to review the issues of intensity and to come to an agreement on what, if any, measures of intensity should be included in the Neighborhood Model District. She reviewed the suggested ranges of FARS (Floor Area Ratios) provided by the Cox Company to decide if FAR's should be added to the Ordinance and provide guidance on what those FAR's should be. The Planning Commission had a full discussion of FARS and suggested the Ordinance not address FARS for now. The Planning Commission did not take a formal action. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. for a dinner break. The meeting reconvened at 6:00 p.m. for the regular meeting. The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Vice -Chairman; Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton; William Finley and Pete Craddock. Absent from the meeting were Tracey Hopper and Jared Loewenstein, Chairman. Mr. Finley arrived at 6:00 p.m. Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Yadira Amarante, Planner; Scott Clark, Planner; Joan McDowell, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Planner; Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda: Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — August 13. 2002. Mr. Rieley noted that he had a few changes to be made to the minutes Mr. Finley moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented. 451 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0) Public Hearing Items: SP-2002-041 Mountainwood Executive Center (Sign #34) — Request for special use permit to allow operation of Mountainwood Executive Center in an existing building, to consist of commercial office space and up to 49 executive apartments in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15, Residential, uses in a CO, Commercial Office district. The property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F, contains 8.98 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Rt. 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) approximately 1/4 mile from the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street Extended. The property is zoned CO, Commercial Office and designated for Community Service in the Comprehensive Plan, in Urban Neighborhood Five. (Margaret Doherty) Ms. Doherty presented the staff report. Staff finds that the request for cooperative parking is appropriate for this mixed -use concept as described in the staff report. She noted that an additional request was being made to allow the parking for the residential use to be located more than 100 feet from the entrance. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow the residential use, the cooperative parking arrangement and the waiver of the residential parking within 100 feet of the entrance as shown on the site plan. She pointed out that the site plan could be administratively approved after the Board approves the special use permit. She pointed out that the applicant was present if the Commission had any questions. Mr. Thomas asked that a correction be made to change "while bring" to "will bring" in the staff report on page 3, fifth paragraph. Ms. Doherty agreed to use the word "will' instead of "while". k Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Since the applicant did not want to address the Commission, Mr. Rieley asked if any member of the public would like to speak. There being none, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and the matter placed before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Rieley noted that there are three separate actions that the Commission needs to make. This includes action on the special use permit, the waiver for cooperative parking and the waiver for the 100-foot distance from the entrance. Mr. Kamptner asked if there were any conditions needed to assure that the dueal uses of parking would be permanently available. Ms. Doherty stated that the cooperative parking arrangement as approved by the Zoning Department was shown on the site plan. Therefore, development according to the site plan would take care of it. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-2002-041, Mountainwood Executive Center for up to 49 residential units with the following condition recommended by staff as follows: 1. The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached Minor Site Plan Amendment, entitled Mountainwood Executive Center, dated August 20, 2002. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried (5:0). Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2002-041 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation +� for approval. 452 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the cooperative parking. Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously Mr. Finley moved for approval of the waiver for the excess of the 100-foot distance of the parking from the residential units. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Rieley stated that the two waivers passed. SP-02-34 Robert V. Finley - Gilliums Mountain PWSF (Sign # 93 94) - Request to amend an approved special use permit for a personal wireless service facility by amending a condition to eliminate a requirement for the applicant to obtain a tree conservation easement on adjacent property under different ownership. The property, described as Tax Map 73 Parcel 31 C, contains 39.5 acres, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of State Route 708 approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of Rt. 708 (Dry Bridge Road) and Rt. 637 (Dick Woods Road). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area 3. (Margaret Doherty) Mr. Rieley stated that the applicant withdrew SP-02-34 SP-2002-038 Lone Oak LLC - Helicopter Landing (Sign #35 36 52) - Request for special use permit to allow a private heliport in accordance with Section 10.2.2.19 and Section 5.1.01 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private airports helistops, heliports, and flight strips. The property, described as Tax Map 134, Parcel 03, contains 1,330.490 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the north side of Rt. 626 (James River Road) approximately 3,600 feet from its intersection with Rt. 723 (Chestnut Grove Road). The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. It is within the Totier Creek Agricultural & Forestal District. (Joan McDowell) Joan McDowell presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) She noted that the applicant's concern had been addressed in that the requests have not been deferred. She stated that the applicant requests a helicopter landing pad under Lone Oak LLC. The applicant has requested a special use permit to have a helistop for private use on an over 1,000 acre parcel on the north side of Route 626, approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Route 723. It is within an Agricultural and Forestal District and the Agricultural/Forestal Committee has voted to approve this application. The original application requested up to to 6 landings per year, and the applicant has changed that to 3 to 4 per year. In the recommended conditions of approval, staff limits it to a maximum of 4 landings per year. She noted that there is a difference between a heliport and a helistop. A helistop is for a private restricted use with no hangers, no fueling at the site and no maintenance. This comes under the classification of helistop. It is a rural area surrounded by a mixture of farmlands, forest and scattered residential. It is within the rural area land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. Mr. Thomas asked how would the County know if the landings would exceed four per year and how would this be monitored. Ms. McDowell stated that the Zoning Department would monitor this only if they received a call from someone complaining that they were exceeding that number. The County would have to rely on the public for notification in this instance. 453 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr. Rieley asked if our ordinance prevents any landing of any helicopter anywhere unless there is specifically a special use permit on the piece of property on which it lands. He asked if it was a violation of the Zoning Ordinance if a helicopter lands. Mr. Benish stated that it would be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance if they landed a helicopter more than once. Mr. Kamptner stated that the irregular or infrequent landing of a helicopter may not in and of itself be a land use. He noted that it was the existence of the helistop and the effects of the landing that the County is looking at. Mr. Rieley stated that it was the pattern. Mr. Finley asked if any of the neighbors had complained due to their cattle. He pointed out that in the committee meeting someone stated that cattle are very frightened by helicopters. He stated that actually cattle stampede. Ms. McDowell stated that actually some of the neighbors have complained. Staff presented the Commission with copies of some of the letters that have been received. She stated that people have called and they have sent some letters in because they could not always be here. She stated that there is some neighbor concerns about horses, cattle and goats. Mr. Rieley asked how many similar facilities have been approved in the rural area in the County in the past. Ms. McDowell stated that she looked and could not find any with this particular limitation. She noted that there was one request that she found that had been turned down. She stated that there was one located in Keswick. Mr. Benish stated that the heliport in Keswick delivered people and was approved so that the helicopter could be there overnight. Mr. Rieley stated that there was one located at Morven Farm. Mr. Benish stated that there was one other approved helistop in the western part of the County a number of years ago. Mr. Rieley asked if they had many problems with the heliport. Mr. Benish stated that he was not aware of any complaints that we have heard Ms. McDowell noted that the Zoning staff did not make any notes on any of these applications. Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Forbes Reback, Attorney representing the applicant, Loan Oak LLC, stated that the questions concerning scaring the horses and the cattle did come up at the Agricultural/Forestal Board Committee meeting. Lone Oak is basically a cattle farm. The cattle are over one mile away from the proposed landing site. He noted in the past that you have been asked four times to approve heliports. In the Albemarle Bank and Trust case, the Kluge case and the Keswick case, all of them were in the Rural Areas and were approved. The one that was denied was Worrell Land and Cattle Company because it was in the wrong zoning district, not Rural Areas. Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone else present to speak for the request. He noted that there were several persons signed up to speak for the other case, but none for this one. 454 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —OCTOBER 1, 2002 William Abbott, resident of Millington Road, stated that he was a pilot who lives in the residential area of which staff calls Rural Areas. He opposed the granting of the special use permit because *4w the airport was only 15 minutes from the property. The applicant could land the helicopter at the airport and drive to the property. He stated that he was addressing the wrong application because he lived near Millington Road. Mr. Rieley invited further public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing and placed the request before the Commission for action. Mr. Craddock asked if a helicopter has to stay at a certain height before it is allowed to come down to minimize the disturbance of the farm animals. He opposed the helicopter flying in at tree top level before it gets to the Lone Oak property. Mr. Reback stated that had not been addressed. Ms. McDowell stated that would be difficult to regulate. Mr. Benish noted that staff has not received any regulations to which they would have to comply. Mr. Edgerton stated that the general concern expressed by the neighbors was the scaring of the farm animals. He asked how close the neighbors were to the previously approved heliports. He stated that Mr. Reback indicated that the Agricultural/Forestal Committee had addressed the concern about scaring cattle. He noted that he did not see how they resolved that in the notes. Mr. Reback stated that David Van Royen said that when he was farming in Warrington and a helicopter would come over or lands near by, his cattle would scatter. He stated that in this particular case, the cattle are kept over a mile away from the landing site. They are not at the landing site. He stated that Frank Coyles was the closest neighbor to this property and he was not sure where his cattle were. Mr. Edgerton asked how far Mr. Coyles cattle were from this site. Mr. Reback stated that it was over 1,000 feet, but he did not know specifically. Mr. Finley asked if the owner was the pilot of the helicopter. Mr. Reback stated that he was not the owner. This helicopter was like a time-share since his client had the use of it about one-third of the time. It is operated by a professional and was called Heliflight Services who used a L 430 executive helicopter. Heliflight Services has experienced pilots and they want to make sure that they are complying with all local zoning ordinances before they get involved. That is why we are here. Mr. Rieley stated that notwithstanding previous approvals, their benchmark for this should be compatibility of this land use with what one would normally expect in the rural areas. In addition, the issue of the impact on the peace and quiet of the neighborhood should be considered as well as the impact on the wildlife and livestock. Mr. Finley stated that the animals would stampede, go wild and go through fences. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-02-38 with the conditions. Mr. Kamptner asked to make one suggestion because item c at the top of page 5 does not refer to helistops. He suggested that the conditions state that section 5.1.01.c1 shall apply and any other sections of the ordinance that relate to heliports as well. Mr. Rieley stated that the motion died for the lack of a second. 455 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr. Edgerton moved for denial of SP-02-38. Mr. Kamptner stated that anyone could second the motion in order to open the discussion. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion in order to get the matter on the floor for discussion and a vote. The motion for denial was approved (3:2) (Thomas — No, Finley — No) Mr. Rieley stated that the next item was SP-2002-039, John A. Griffin. SP-2002-039 John A. Griffin (Sign #53 and 82J - Request for special use permit to allow a private heliport in accordance with Section 10.2.2.19 and Section 5.1.01 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private airports helistops, heliports, and flight strips. The property, described as Tax Map 28 Parcel 12, contains 153.120 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District at 3332 Millington Road on the north side of Rt. 665 (Millington Road) and east of Rt. 671 (Ballards Mill Road). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. It is within the Moormans River Agricultural & Forestal District. (Joan McDowell) Ms. McDowell presented the staff report. She noted that this is a very similar application to the previous request including the owner of the property and the proposed use of a helistop. The applicant has requested 3 or 4 landings per year with the maximum of 4 landings per year. The major difference is the location. The property is located at 3332 Millington Road. The Agricultural/Forestal Committee voted for approval for this application subject to conditions. Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Forbes Reback, Attorney for the applicant, stated that this request is very similar except the property is smaller and located in a more inhabited area. He noted that he lived in this area even closer than Mr. Abbott who is prepared to address you in opposition to this. He noted that his beegles dislike the big balloons, but they have gotten use them. The landing approach to this property comes over another 1,000 acre farm called Chapel Springs which use to be Burning Daylight Farm. The landing approach also comes over property that his wife owns as well as Mr. Birdsall's property. He noted that Mr. Birdsall and his wife and himself were all happy about it. Four times per year was not a lot of traffic. He asked that the Commission recommend approval. They would be coming from New York, but they know how they would make the approach. The only thing they need is a little windsock so they can see which way the wind is blowing. Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing. He noted that two people have signed up and Denise Zecol is first. Denise Zecol, an adjacent property owner, noted her dismay that the flight path would bring the helicopter right over her pasture and her milk cows. She voiced concern over the possibility of having to keep a record of the number of flights. She voiced opposition to the request since she would be right behind the helistop as shown on the map. William Abbott, an adjacent property owner, stated that he lived on the same road. He pointed out that he spends a lot of time at the airport since he was a pilot. When Pegasus lands it is very noisy and creates a tremendous amount of wind. He felt that this could be dangerous to animals because Mr. Finley was correct that it could make animals very nervous. He stated that they have horses on their properties that have been scared by airplanes. He pointed out that 500 feet is the minimum that you can fly over rural area as per the FAA regulations and 1,000 feet over a congested area. Walking the road every day, he sees people from the riding stable riding along the side of the road. He felt that it would a danger to those people if a helicopter came in low 456 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 enough to land. He expressed concern about the fueling of the helicopter and the possible leaking of oil. Since he lives about 15 minutes from the airport, he felt that the helistop was unnecessary because the applicant could land there and drive to the property. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that he did not have a prepared statement, and the PEC has adopted no position on this proposal. He noted however that he would like to simply offer a perspective. He stated that he was curious about the development potential of this parcel. He did not know Mr. Griffin's intent, but if his intent was to protect the property from development, might the denial of this request alter his intent ... and, maybe, he'll develop it instead. He stated that he offered this only as a perspective to consider. If he were to have a choice between a group of new homes here with the cars and truck traffic that would be generated OR a helicopter landing there four times a year, he'd accept the four helicopter flights. Also, in the public comments, he was hearing more than concern for a helicopter pad. He was concerned that he heard the Rural Area referred to as a residential area. Until they completely build it out and transform it to suburbia, he remained hopeful that agriculture is not dead. What if they were here discussing a farm tractor running at sunrise, or a crop duster flying overhead, or the operation of a seasonal sawmill? He hoped that the expressed desire to keep the RA a peaceful and quiet residential area does not become a key criterion for reviewing the use of the rural area. He stated that if they were going to uphold this, he really hoped that they would go back and revisited a really poor decision on Peter's Mountain and then ask the Board of Supervisors to apply the same amount of consideration to those folks out there. Robert Strutton, of 3624 Millington Road, spoke in opposition to the request due to the noise inconvenience. Cecilia Hurt, 4110 Ballards Mill Road, spoke in opposition to the request because the flight approach would be right over their house. She stated that the property was zoned rural areas and they were trying to raise some animals. Since they were so close to the airport, she did not understand why they need another place to land. Monya Van Dyke, neighbor of Cecilia Hunt, stated that a lot of Free Union is getting into the nature conservancy. She understands that Chapel Spring Farm, which use to be Burning Daylight Farm, is a nature conservancy. A helicopter for normal transport reasons does not fit in that program. There is no comparison with Pegasus. Pegasus is to save lives. She stated that she would not complain if someone were trying to save lives. If it is just for transport and convenience, then she did have a complaint because they were really near an airport. There is not reason for a helicopter pad in this area. She stated that the wonderful characteristic for living in the country is the privacy. Having a helicopter fly over the land would have an impact on the privacy. She stated that she was strongly in opposition. Mr. Reback pointed out that the Board of Supervisors has a category in the rural areas to allow a helistop by special use permit. There have been three applications in the rural areas for helicopters. The only one that was disapproved was the one in the rural area. There is plenty of precedent to permit this use of this man's land. He asked that the Commission approve the request Mr. Finley stated that this would cross both of his farms. Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Commission for action. Mr. Finley voiced concern that they would start building helistops or helipads everywhere they have large tracts of land. Mr. Thomas stated that it was at the discretion of the Commission whether to approve this or not. He moved for approval due to the precedent of the others that have been allowed. 457 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr. Craddock opposed this one request for the same reasons that he opposed the prior one SbW Mr. Edgerton stated that their responsibility was to be concerned about the County's interest and not an individual's interest. He noted that it was more appropriate for the individual to land at the Charlottesville Airport and travel to his farm by car. He noted that he would vote against this one as well. Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Finley that just because they had approved a few of these in the past did not mean that they have to approve this one and lots more in the future. He stated that the close proximity to the airport makes this one overwhelming. Mr. Kamptner stated that if the recommendation goes to the Board and they decide to approve it, Mr. Thomas asked to add a condition under the previous application that Section 5.1.01.c1 shall apply as well as any other sections of the ordinance that relate to heliports. Mr. Rieley stated that there was consensus among the Commissioners that they would like to add condition 7, as Mr. Kamptner outlined it, to be passed on to the Board of Supervisors in case they don't agree with our assessment of this situation. Mr. Edgerton asked that it be retroactive for the prior case. He moved to deny SP-2002-039 for John A. Griffin. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried (4:1), for denial. (Thomas — No) Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2002-039 would go to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation for denial on November 6 . He stated that if the Board chose to approve the request, the Commission supported staff's recommended conditions with the addition of condition 7 as follows: 1. The location of the helistop shall be located as shown on Attachment A, titled SP 02-39 John Griffin Helistop and dated September 2002. 2. The maximum number of landings per calendar year shall be four (4). 3. No helicopter maintenance, other than emergency maintenance, shall be allowed to occur on the property. 4. Other than a windsock on a maximum 12-foot high pole, no improvements or construction will be permitted. 5. No other airborne vehicle, other than helicopters, shall be permitted to use this facility. 6. No lighting for the helicopter -landing site will be permitted. 7. Section 5.1.01.c1 shall apply and any other sections of the ordinance that relate to heliports as well. ZMA-2002-009 Lloyd F. Wood Jr (Sign#90) - Request to rezone 0.5 acres from RA Rural Areas to C1 Commercial to allow installation of a stormwater detention/quality facility and a septic drainfield for the commercial use located across US 250 on the same property. The property, described as Tax Map 79 Parcel 9, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Rt. 250, (Richmond Road) at the intersection of Rt. 250 and Rt. 22 (Louisa Road). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Scott Clark) Scott Clark presented the staff report. He stated that the proposal was for the rezoning of an one-half acre section of a parcel at the Shadwell Market. The parcel up until 1980 was zoned commercial on both the north and south sides of Route 250. During the 1980 rezoning it was split so that the northern portion reflected the commercial use C-1 and the southern portion being rezoned to RA. Recently the applicant came in with the preliminary site plan application and was informed that the design proposed, which included septic and stormwater facilities on the RA portion, could not have those facilities in the RA District. The site plan has been deferred until this has been resolved. The applicant also appealed the Zoning Administrator's determination on 458 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 that subject and went to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination as to the septic system. Given that, the rezoning would still be necessary in order for that site plan to go forward. The applicant has submitted this rezoning proposal with the three proffers that you see at the beginning of the staff report. The proffers limits the parcel to the commercial uses already going on there, limits this to the northern half of the parcel where the market currently exists, provides that only the southern portion can be used for stormwater and septic, and that the property cannot be divided in the future. Normally staff would recommend denial of a rezoning from RA to C-1. But, given the history of the use and the surroundings of this parcel, staff felt that they needed to give this a more detailed look. The factors considered includes the fact that this was commercial for a very long time, that it is only one-half an acre, it is very difficult to access and is entirely surrounded by more intense uses. This proposal has a fairly limited impact and is pretty unique given the combination of factors. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning with the three proffers as submitted by the applicant. Mr. Rieley noted that they approved a zoning text amendment last week that allowed stormwater drainage facilities in the Rural Areas as a by -right use. As he understands it, that would satisfy the stormwater component of this application, but not the septic field component. Mr. Thomas stated that the stormwater facility is not a by -right use in the Rural Areas, but by special use permit. Then the septic would also have to have a special use permit. Mr. Rieley asked that they receive clarification on that. He noted that his understanding was that it did not apply to the septic field. Mr. Benish stated that was correct. Mr. Kamptner stated that the ZTA does not apply to the septic field. Mr. Benish stated that the ZTA has not been acted on by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rieley stated that would allow another option for this stormwater facility to be handled Mr. Edgerton asked if any other commercial use could be placed on the southern parcel. Mr. Kamptner stated that the southern parcel could only be used for the septic and stormwater facility. Joe Wright, representative for the applicant L. F. Wood, Jr., stated that Mr. Wood's property, tax Map 079, parcel 9 is currently bifurcated by Route 250. One portion of that parcel of property is located north of Route 250 and is .6 of an acre where the existing Shadwell Market is located. He handed out photographs for the Commission's review. The portion of that property north of Route 250 has been zoned C-1 and B-1 for many years. The parcel south of Route 250 is one- half an acre and is the subject of the rezoning request. In 1980, this parcel was rezoned to RA. Despite the property being separated by Route 250, the property has always been treated by Albemarle County as one parcel of real property. It is assigned one tax map identification number and has been for years. It has been taxed as one parcel almost consistently since 1939. It has been taxed as if the entire parcel was zoned C-1 for all of those years. The zoning request is straight forward. Mr. Wood filed some months ago a preliminary site plan application requesting approval to construct a replacement for the existing Shadwell Store on the northern C-1 portion of the property. He stated that Bill Atwood's rendering showed what the newly constructed store and canopy would look like. He is going to build a 3,200 square foot replacement store after tearing down the old Rock Store. This is an effort to update the store that is better positioned to serve the market in 2002. The County staff has approved the site plan for reconstructing the store with the exception of two details. The first is the stormwater detention facility, and the second is septic drainfields. The site plan showed both of those details on the portion of the 459 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 property zoned RA. Back in early June, Ms. McCulley the Zoning Administrator, issued a I *taw determination which basically concluded that you cannot have a use on a parcel that is zoned RA which is accessory to a primary use that is located on a commercially zoned property. First, stormwater detention on this parcel attracts the natural ground water flows that had been in place for a number of years. The stormwater that is generated on this parcel now crosses Route 250 and goes under Route The distribution lines are the only things that will be located on this portion of the property for the septic treatment for the property. He concurred with the staff report that this small parcel has little significance for other agricultural or conservation uses. Mr. Wood has agreed to proffer all other development rights of this parcel south of Route 250. The only thing he is going to be doing to this parcel is placing the stormwater detention facility and the septic lines. The Board of Zoning Appeals lent its unanimous endorsement to the rezoning. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Steve Edwards, of McKee Carson, stated that the only grading on the southern parcel would be for the berming for the dam for the stormwater detention facility. Mr. Craddock noted that the eastbound and westbound photographs should be reversed. Mr. Edgerton asked if the majority of the vegetation on the site would disappear. Mr. Edwards stated that was correct, but pointed out that the majority of the parcel is 30 feet below the road level. Mr. Rieley asked if any one else wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Finley stated that it was a wise use for this piece of property. Mr. Craddock stated that the store really needs upgrading and will be an access to the community, particularly with the improved access to the property. Mr. Thomas stated that the piece of property is about 20 feet below the highway level. He noted that it was adjacent to the railroad tracks and the quarry property. There being no further public comment, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Commission for action. Mr. Edgerton supported this use on the property noting that he hated that all of those trees have to be cut down. He asked that the erosion be kept to a minimum. Mr. Rieley stated that he hated that the store had to be torn down because it was one of his favorites. He supported the request. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of ZMA-2002-009, Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. with the proffers as listed in the staff report as follows: 1. The development of the property shall be restricted to those uses allowed by right under Section 22.2.1(a)(6) (food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops), (b)(16) (automobile service stations) and (b)(19) (temporary construction uses) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, as that section is in effect on (date of BoS action). A copy of Section 22.2.1 in effect on (date of BoS action) is attached hereto and made a part of this proffer. 2. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on the portion of the property south of Route 250. 3. The property shall not be divided. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which carried (5:0). 460 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr. Rieley stated that ZMA-2002-009 would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on November � 61h with a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission. SUB 01-201 Chimney Rock Farm Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Request for plat approval to create 4 lots averaging 4.77 acres and an 82.02 acre residue. All of these lots will be served by an internal private road. The property is located on approximately 105.849 acres zoned RA (Rural Area). It is described as Tax Map 18-Parcel 21 and is located west of an extension of State Route 1573 (Windrift Drive) west of the Windrift Subdivision. This property is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is designated for Rural Area uses in Rural Area 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. (Yadira Amarante) Ms. Amarante presented the staff report. She stated that this request was before the Commission on December 4th of 2001 and at that time the Planning Commission asked the applicant to defer action until staff was able to get more information on different issues that arose during the time of review. Several things have changed since then. The applicant has reclassified this application as a preliminary, whereas before they were requesting final plat approval. This relieves the applicant from having to provide the technical plans such as the erosion and sediment control plans and the road plans before they know if the concept will be approved by the Planning Commission. Basically the plat is exactly the same as it was except now it is just called a preliminary. They are also requesting that a private road be approved to serve the subdivision. Last time staff had recommended approval because the private road had met that 30-foot differential from a public road alignment. She noted that staff was keeping that same recommendation and also recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions as stated in this most recent staff report. On page 2, under dam resizing and repair which was one of the issues that had come up, she had stated in the staff report that the improvements would Syr,, have to be built or bonded within a year. She noted that was a mistake and should read that these improvements must be bonded prior to final plat approval and then the improvements must be constructed within a year. Basically they would only hold the bond for one year of the dam improvements. Mr. Rieley asked what happens to the dam if the improvements have not been made. Ms. Amarante stated that they would be in violation of the subdivision. She stated that she was not sure what these improvements consist of, but noted that the Division of Dam Safety would bring the dam into compliance and it will be part of final plat approval that those conditions will be done before the final plat is signed. Mr. Rieley asked what role the Engineering Department has played in the evaluation of the dam. Ms. Amarante stated that Jeff Thomas of the Engineering Department is here and can elaborate. Jeff Thomas, of the Albemarle County Engineering Department, stated that they were deferring in some measure to DCR and John Phillips as the dam safety engineer because of his expertise in this field. However, they have been reviewing the plans concurrently with them and have been monitoring the progress that the applicant is making in coming into compliance with VCR. Mr. Finley asked if he had been in contact with Mr. Phillips, the Director of Dam Safety. Mr. Thomas stated that he had spoken with him, but not recently. It was his understanding that it was before the Soil and Water Conservation Board for approval and they have not received any confirmation of an action letter of any kind. He noted that was a condition of the final plat approval that they would require. rrW 461 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr. Thomas asked if they could elaborate on the punch list on the private road. ,%W Mr. Thomas stated that since this was an unusual circumstance as the private road was built before hand, they sent their road inspector out. Normally what he would do in a regular instance he would have an approved set of plans and he would go out and compare the as -built condition of the road with the plans and generate a punch list. That is a list of items that need to be done to bring them in to compliance with our road standards and if it is a public road to prepare it for conveyance to the state for maintenance. In this case, there is an as -built set of plans and he went out and did a punch list of what needs to be done to bring the road up to standards. Mr. Thomas asked if that was something that the Commission would see again under the final site plan. Mr. Rieley stated that they would only see that if they called the plan up for review and tonight was their opportunity to do that. Mr. Thomas stated that they did the punch list at the request of the Commission from the last meeting. Mr. Rieley asked if the standards called for the 14-foot width since they were in the 3 to 5 private lot category. Mr. Thomas stated that was correct, except in some areas the grade exceeds 7 percent and would need to be paved for traction purposes. Mr. Thomas stated that some of the trees had been pushed into the stream. He asked if that matter has been taken care of. Mr. Thomas stated that the stream buffer mitigation plan is being taken care of right now. He noted that Stephen Bowler, our Watershed Manager, has been working with the applicants. The mitigation plan consists of putting together an easement and basically extending an easement from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authorities, the Buck Mountain easement, from a stream that adjoins the property and putting together deed language to restrict the activities within that easement. Mr. Thomas asked if that would take care of the silt going down the stream Mr. Thomas stated that it depends on which stream he was talking about since there were two. There is the one that the dam is actually built on. Then there is another stream to the south that has some silt. The idea was to protect the area and to let it heal naturally. Ms. Amarante stated that staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions as noted in the staff report of both the private road request and the preliminary subdivision plat. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant asked to reserve time at the end to address the Commission. Mr. Rieley stated that was fine. He asked if there was anyone else present to speak on this matter. Patty Swaggart, a neighboring landowner, stated that she shared about one-half a mile of land boundary with the Brills. She stated that there were actually three streams, two of them that use to run on her property. She was told that the dam was to be lowered to the 25-foot standard. She stated that she could still not find out what was going to happen with the dam. She noted 462 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 that she did not know how the dam was built and it was 5 feet from her property line. She voiced concern about the private road. While the road does not cross her property, it did impact her property in the way the road was built. She noted particular concern with the mitigation plan that has been submitted to mitigate the stream buffer violations that took place. In her conversations with Stephen Bowler, he stated that he did not write a stronger letter originally because the land was considered to be an agricultural use. Then the subdivision paperwork came through and it was determined not to be an agricultural use, but another letter was not written. She pointed out that it was her trees that had been pushed from that stream buffer into the stream. There is a 30- foot path that comes down along that little stream. It certainly does not meet what the Ordinance says. That actually took place in the Rivanna easement area. The easement runs off her little stream and continues on into theirs. By extending the easement of the Rivanna Water and Sewer folks to include more land on the Brills does not make any sense. They violated it when it had an easement there before and why wouldn't they violate it again? There are still no teeth in that. She noted that the mitigation plan was inadequate and needs to be addressed and taken into consideration that the violation is there. She noted concern that as a preliminary plan this gets approved and basically rubber-stamped administratively and nobody looks at it again. She asked that the Commission continue to stay involved in this whatever the decision is tonight so that each aspect of this very complicated aggressive set of violations here that have never been met are taken into consideration. Nick Strolloft stated that he has worked at Albemarle High School for nine years and plans to build a home on one of these lots. He stated that they sold their home about one year ago and currently were renting. They hope to start building soon. He asked that the Commission approve this request since it would be a real benefit to the County. Kim Grille, one of the applicants, stated that it had been ten months since they first came before the Commission. She noted that they have been working towards full compliance with the County on both the road and the dam concerns. A number of studies have been done on the dam that the VCR is working on. Mr. Thomas did not note it, but they have received unofficial approval of all of these studies. Mr. Phillpa did not write the official letter until his Board met in September. He noted that he was going to wait until the Board met, but he was recommending approval for our dam. The study showed complete compliance of all the safety measures. They were recommending for the dam that a second emergency spillway be built that could withstand 17 inches of rain within 24 hours with a completely clogged riser. The spillway would have to be constructed within a year. Therefore, they would put up the bond money for that for a year. He had no other concerns about the safety of the dam as it is built. As far as the road, they have been working to make sure that they were in compliance with the standards of the County as far as the private road goes. It is my understanding that they do approve the private road with some minor things to be done to it. One of them is the paving and there might be a few minor grading issues. She asked that the Commission allow the approval of the preliminary plat with the noted conditions and not prolong the process. There being no further comment, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Commission for action. Mr. Rieley asked to have the final plat and the buffer mitigation plan brought back at the final review of the plat. He noted that this was an official request for the final plat to come back with the topography. He stated that they wanted to see the actual stream mitigation plan. Mr. Finley moved for approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions as previously stated. Mr. Thomas asked if there was any mechanism that can control that? Mr. Rieley asked staff if there were any regulations against grading within five feet of a property line in this type of instance. 463 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 Ms. Amarante stated that she did not. rVft ` Mr. Kamptner stated that it was not an interzoning district issue. Typically the Commission sees this when it is a C-1 zone is backing up against residential. Mr. Craddock stated if they approve this preliminary does that still give us plenty of change to look at different aspects prior to final approval. He asked if this would just advance this along. Mr. Rieley stated that if they have fundamental disagreement with lot layout or something of that nature, now would be a good time to raise that concern and not at the final plat level. One concern that he has is the relationship between the bonding, the length of the bond and the relationship of the bonding and the signing of the plat. It seems that the bond should certainly run until the plat is signed and the plat should not be signed until all of the conditions are actually met. Ms. Amarante noted that bonding was discretionary. Mr. Rieley asked that in lieu of bonding could something require that everything be done before the final plat can be signed. Ms. Amarante stated that it could. Mr. Rieley stated that in lieu of the history of this property, that would be the best thing to be done for this project. Mr. Finley stated that these improvements must be built or bonded within one year of the final plat approval. He noted that was on the dam. Mr. Rieley suggested that the plat not be signed until the improvements are actually completed. 1%W Basically this would remove bonding as an option. He stated that his concern was that the bonding has a one-year limitation on it. He stated that he would hate to have a signed plat that was under way and then have lingering issues relative to this project. In light of its history, he felt that the responsible thing was to make sure that all of these things are done prior to the plat being signed. Mr. Edgerton noted that he did not see this project the last time that it came in. He asked if the lot configuration was consistent with what was submitted before. He asked if there was logic in the separation between lots 3 and 4. Mr. Rieley stated that has not changed and the lot configuration was not the focus of their discussion. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that without the topo it was very hard to understand this. He presumed that the road and the lake has been built in the noted locations. Mr. Rieley stated that on the other hand, neither one of them was built within the guidelines of the existing regulations. He noted that there was a motion on the floor that had not been seconded. Mr. Thomas asked if they would see the plat configuration and layout again with topos. He asked if it was too late to voice their opinions on the configurations of the lots at that point. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner's opinion about that if they approve this as a preliminary plat in absence of the topography and with concerns about the lot layout that can't be answered without the topography, is that something they can address at the final plat. Mr. Kamptner stated that if the Commission determines that the lot configurations and dimensions don't comply with the lot requirements of the subdivision ordinance, that is a basis to deny the 464 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 final plat. He noted that he has always heard that the period between the preliminary and final plat is when all of the engineering work is done. He stated if the Commission could identify their concerns now, that would be preferable. Mr. Finley stated that the configuration of the dam may change and that might affect the lot layout. He pointed out that they would see that when they get the final plat back. Mr. Rieley stated that the major adjustment of the dam itself was going to be the construction of the emergency spillway that may not affect the lot layout at all. He felt initially that these lots are large enough so that an eccentric arrangement of lots did not have a substantial public issue as long as it met the subdivision requirements. Mr. Finley stated that the dam and the lake was to become a stormwater management facility and would have to go through the same process and time just like any other facility. Mr. Rieley stated that all of that would definitely be reviewed. He asked Mr. Finley if he would accept a friendly amendment in lieu of bonding that all of the improvements that are called for within this will be completed before the final plat is signed. Mr. Finley agreed to the amendment to the motion. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried Mr. Edgerton stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Finley's motion includes reconsideration by the Planning Commission before the final plat is signed. Mr. Rieley stated that was correct because any Commissioner can call the final plat back, and two have so far. He noted that they were covered on that aspect. Mr. Finley stated that he understood that when he made the motion. Mr. Rieley asked if there was any other discussion. Mr. Craddock asked if you could build a dam 5 feet from an adjoining property owner. He noted that the dam was agriculture when it started out, and now it is a subdivision dam. He stated that something did not cook just right. He stated that to build something illegal and then ask for forgiveness later did not seem appropriate. Mr. Rieley stated that was very much the issue the last time this came before them. Mr. Edgerton asked if the dam was on lot 4. He pointed out that without the topo it was very hard to know for sure. Ms. Amarante stated that it was on the residue parcel of 82 acres. Mr. Edgerton stated that it looked like the stream coming in was coming off the adjoining property. Mr. Rieley stated that he assumed that the dam was in this area and this was the spillway. Mr. Finley stated that it was going to be a stormwater management pond so it would have to accept the flow coming off the development from where ever. Mr. Rieley stated that was correct, but was hard to figure out without the topography. He asked if there was any other discussion. Mr. Kamptner asked if the approval of the private road was included in the motion. 465 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 1, 2002 ' Mr. Rieley stated that was a separate issue. He noted that he was planning on dealing with that separately. Mr. Kamptner stated that was fine. The motion carried (4:1). (Craddock —No) Mr. Rieley stated that this would come back before the Commission at the final site plan level since they were very interested in it and wanted to see some topography at that level. Mr. Thomas stated that it was a real shame that things are started that way. He pointed out that it makes it hard on the whole process. Mr. Rieley asked that they deal with the private road request to serve this. The road will have to be brought up to the standards of the 3 to 5 lot subdivision standards and with some additional areas of pavement as Mr. Thomas said. Mr. Thomas asked if that would be included in the punch list that was discussed. Mr. Rieley stated that was correct. Mr. Thomas asked if there was anything else that they needed to ask for. Mr. Rieley stated no because the final plat would come back and the plat drawings would include the geometry of the private roads. Ms. Amarante stated that they have the road plans already in house and are waiting for the authorization of the private road to be able to review them. Mr. Rieley asked to be clear that they also include that the improvements to meet the private road standards be met before the final plat is signed. Mr. Thomas agreed. Mr. Finley moved for approval of the plan for private road with the stipulations that will be in the minutes. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried (4:1). (Craddock — No) The Planning Commission approved the Chimney Rock Farm Preliminary Plat, SUB-01-201, with the following conditions: The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Engineering Department approval of: (1) If the Commission grants the private road waiver, the improvements noted during our inspection, plus any other items deemed necessary during Engineering Department review must be built prior to final plat approval. (2) We must receive official notification from DCR that the dam and spillway improvement plans have been approved. These improvements must be completed prior to final plat approval. (3) An erosion and sediment control plan for the dam and spillway improvements was received on August 26, 2002. We cannot review this plan until the preliminary plat is approved. The E&SC plan must be approved prior to final plat approval. [14-311, 17-203] 466 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —OCTOBER 1, 2002 (4) The deed language for the proposed Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority easement *40,,, must be finalized and recorded. This deed constitutes the stream buffer mitigation plan. (5) A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality and detention routings for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] (6) A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17-323] b. Building Codes and Zoning Services Department approval of: (1) [4.2.2] When certifying legal building sites on the plat, please revise to the following: Lots 1 through 4 each contain a building site of at least 30,000 sf of contiguous area of less than 25% slopes and each building site has adequate area for locating 2 septic drain fields approved by the Virginia Department of Health. Department of Planning and Community Development approval of: (1) A road maintenance agreement subject to County Attorney review and approval. [14-313] The final plat will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant shall provide a copy of the stream buffer mitigation plan and topography maps. Mr. Rieley stated that since this is a subdivision, it will not go before the Board but will come back before the Planning Commission as a final plat. Old Business: Mr. Kampnter stated that he would present the new affordable housing legislation at next week's meeting. He asked if the Commission wanted Mr. White, the Chief of Housing, to come or did they just want to understand the new legislation. Mr. Rieley stated that they just wanted to understand the new legislation, its impact and potential opportunities. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. (Recorded and transcribed by S 467 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —OCTOBER 1, 2002