HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 12 2002 PC Minutes09
Albemarle County Planning Commission
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 12, 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; William Finley; Pete Craddock and Tracey Hopper. Absent were Jared Loewenstein,
Chairman and Bill Edgerton.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner;
Francis MacCall, Planner and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Rieley invited public comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — November 6, 2002.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 6, 2002 as
follows:
The Board has been presented with the concept of a roundabout at the intersection of
Airport Road and Dickson Road (Routes 649/606). The roundabout would be in lieu of
the four-way stop that is currently there and a potential traffic signal as another alternate
way to address that intersection. This would be tied into the Airport Road Improvement
Project which is scheduled to be under way as part of the Six -Year Plan within the next
one and a half years. The Board endorsed this roundabout concept at the intersection of
Airport Road and Route 606 last week. This solution was made through a joint effort of
the County, the Airport Authority and VDOT. He noted that this was a significant
intersection.
The Board approved a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include
an Affordable Housing Policy. You may recall that in the Neighborhood Model that
affordable housing was a principle that we wanted to achieve. Since that time the
Housing Office and the County Housing Committee have been pursuing ways to establish
a more specific applicable policy and set of actions. Their decision was to pursue this
approach to establish a very clear policy or a set of goals, objectives and strategies that
would be a part of the Comprehensive Plan and would guide affordable housing
considerations in new development as well as other programs in the County. You will be
seeing more of that in the coming months as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board held a Work session on the parking recommendations that you had sent to
them. This will possibly be going to public hearing in December. One of the things that
have changed since the Commission's last meeting on parking is the allowance for
parking as a stand alone use accessory to other uses. That was something that was in
the Ordinance that you considered and allowed for ultimately in some cases by right
rather than by special use permit. There was further discussion regarding that with the
County Attorney's Office. A determination was made that would not be an allowable use
by right if it was only an accessory use to other uses. What the Board will be going to
public hearing with is that type of parking will be required by special use permit. It then
can be established as accessory through the special use permit process. The whole idea
there was the concept of not just getting parking lots that were speculative commercial
parking lots, but rather would be lots providing for a parking requirement that would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 505
En
otherwise not be met on other nearby properties. Essentially it would give the other uses
in the area an alternative to meet their parking requirement.
The Board decided to move to public hearing on the Mountain Overlay District Zoning
Ordinance and map amendment that they tabled several years ago. The hearing will
probably be held in February. There is an advertisement requirement. There is a
notification requirement. Staff thinks that there will be a lot of public interest and
questions regarding the ordinance and the map amendment. The Board decided to have
a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. The Commission will be asked to
participate with the Board. One decision that the Board will need to make is what
ordinance version that they will actually take to public hearing. The Board will compare
the tabled version of the ordinance with the Planning Commission's recommended
version.
• The Board approved SP-2002-041, Mountain Wood Executive Center and ZMA-2002-09
as proffered for Lloyd Wood at Shadwell Store which is across the street from the store.
Both items were approved as the Commission recommended.
Consent Agenda:
SDP-2002-126 Ennstone Concrete Mixing Plant Final Site Plan Buffer Disturbance Waiver —
Request pursuant to Section 26.10.3, to disturb the required 30' buffer between Industrial and
Residential properties. (Francis MacCall)
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes -September 10, 2002, September 17, 2002 and
September 24, 2002.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were two items on the consent agenda. He noted that before he
asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item off the consent agenda, he would like Mr.
Cilimberg to address some of the issues regarding the Ennstone Concrete Mixing Plant Final Site
Plan Buffer Disturbance Waiver. He pointed out that the Commission had received some late
information regarding this project.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that you have before you a memo from Francis MacCall with a letter hand
delivered from Steve Blaine who represents an owner in Cedars Hills requesting that the
Ennstone waiver buffer requirements be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion as a
regular item which would include the opportunity for public comment. The letter explains points
that Mr. Blaine feels are relevant to this being pulled from the consent agenda and being
discussed as a regular item. He noted that one matter raised here was a question whether a
special use permit should have been required for this particular activity. In response to that,
Amelia McCulley today has provided an official determination regarding that question and has
drawn an distinction between a concrete mixing plant and a cement manufacturing or a
processing plant. In the determination concrete mixing is allowed in the HI by right, but cement
manufacturing or processing is by special use permit. She established that Ennstone is in fact a
by -right use. That is an official determination. That is important to note for you because just to
keep things straight forward and simple. That means that the site plan is properly before the
County for a decision as a by -right use. That does not include any discussion or consideration of
this being a special use permit instead of by right. He pointed out that an official determination
made by the Zoning Administrator can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but that is
another matter.
Mr. Kamptner added, for the record, that if anyone feels aggrieved by this determination they may
appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals within thirty days of the date of the decision by filing with
the Zoning Administrator and with the Board of Zoning Appeals.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 506
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission when making the decision whether to pull this item from
the consent agenda will be focused on the site plan issue before you that is the waiver of that
buffer.
Mr. Rieley thanked Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Kamptner for laying the foundation for this. With that
information at hand, he asked if anyone would like to pull any of the items on the consent agenda?
Mr. Thomas moved to pull SDP-2002-126, Ennstone Concrete Mixing Plant Final Site Plan Buffer
Disturbance Waiver, from the consent agenda for discussion and to make two points which he
would like to make the Board aware of. He noted that he was not pulling this item regarding the
waiver request for the buffer, but for the discussion of two other issues. He stated that the first
issue regarded the trucks making U-turns on the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29 to
enter and leave the site, which was a safety issue. He noted that the fact that the trucks were
loaded, heavy and slow when entering the highway makes it very dangerous. He asked if there
would be any accommodations made by VDOT to help alleviate this problem to help accelerate
and blend the trucks into the traffic. He noted that the second issue regarded the concern with
their water usage per day. Due to an email that he received today, he felt confident that the use
had a very minimal amount of water usage. He pointed out that he supported the waiver for the
buffer. These comments are made specifically to address those concerns by putting them into the
minutes and to make the Board of Supervisors aware of them.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved (7:0).
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner what level of discretion the Planning Commission has in
determining whether or not to grant this waiver.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission has the discretion to grant the waiver of the buffer zone
if the criteria listed in 26.10.3 are satisfied. If those criteria are satisfied, the Commission is not
necessarily compelled to grant the waiver. It would be reasonable for the Commission to consider
the impacts that granting the waiver would have from the adjoining residential and rural zoned
properties because that is the reason that the buffer zone exists. He noted that the Commission
needs to exercise its discretion based upon the applicable criteria and the relevant facts.
Mr. Rieley stated that this was not officially a public hearing item; however, if there was no
objections from any of the Commissioners, he would like to open this for public comment and hear
from both the applicant or anyone else who wished to address this. He asked if anyone had a
concern with that.
Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Commission take action on the remaining consent agenda item
before opening the public hearing.
Mr. Rieley asked for a motion on the minutes.
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes -September 10, 2002, September 17, 2002 and
September 24, 2002.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the minutes of September 10, 2002, September 17, 2002 and
September 24, 2002.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
Mr. Rieley stated that section of the consent agenda had passed. He asked if the applicant would
like to address the Commission on the issue of this waiver.
Valerie Long, attorney for the applicant Ennstone, stated that as you see in the staffs report the
criteria that the ordinance spells out for the Commission to use in considering the waiver request.
,%w She read it as follows, "No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 507
occur closer than 30 feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as
required in Section 32.7.9, except the Commission may waive this requirement in a particular
case where it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary or it would result in an
improved site design provided that minimum screening requirements are met in existing
landscaping in excess of minimum requirements substantially restored." She noted that the key
clause there would be that where it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary
or would result in an improved site design. As you probably saw in the staff report, Ms. McCulley
concluded that the site plan includes the minimum screening requirements and substantially more
landscaping that is required. If you have looked at the actual site plan application, the landscape
plan is quite substantial. She stated that there were over sixty plants that were being planted in
the buffer area. In addition, the grading that the applicant proposes to undertake will actually
move the access road that Ennstone's trucks will use to access the facility farther away from the
residential district than it is located right now. At present the access road is flush against the
residential district. As Ennstone proposes to locate it, it will actually be farther away from that
residential district. In addition, Ennstone will then replant the graded area with substantial
amounts of landscaping. If you don't have a copy of that, she would be happy to pass around a
copy. The letter Mr. Blaine provided also raised some questions about traffic. Because Mr.
Thomas has already raised those questions, she wanted to point out some of the traffic
improvements that Ennstone will be undertaking as part of its site plan. The entrance to the
property from Rt. 29 will be widened. Currently it is a private access easement 50 feet wide.
Amerigas, which is a use right at the corner of that driveway and Route 29, already uses that
driveway. It does not meet commercial entrance standards. As part of the site plan application,
Ennstone will upgrade that entrance so that it will meet the commercial entrance standards. She
noted that among other things that would involve widening the entrance and improving the turning
radiuses there. She noted that if there were any questions about traffic and other engineering
issues that Ennstone's engineer from Roudabush and Gale is here and can address those issues.
Another issue that VDOT raised during the site review process was a question regarding the
ability of trucks that desire to access Ennstone facility from the south of the property. Trucks
err heading north on Route 29 who want to access the site will have to pull over in the left hand, there
is a taper lane there, and cross over and make a U-turn to go back to the site. They wanted to
make sure that there was no stacking of the trucks at that turn lane. At VDOT's request,
Ennstone will be doubling the length of that taper lane from 100 to 200 feet to address that
concern. As far as she knew, those were the only traffic concerns that VDOT had raised. She
noted that they believe that Ennstone has addressed all of the traffic issues. They think it will be a
vast improvement over the current situation and will sufficiently address those issues. Regarding
the concern for the impact of this proposed use on adjacent properties, Ennstone is a British
Company that has several plants in Virginia and Pennsylvania. They tell me that they like to say
that they have set the bar on industry standards for environmental policies and standards for
noise and dust reduction. She stated that personally she visited one of their facilities in Dunfries,
Virginia so she could learn a bit about the proposed plant. She noted that it was quite amazing
that they have the highest standards for controlling those issues. In addition that, this property
has been zoned Heavy Industry for some time now. It is clear, as the Zoning Administrator
determined in her official capacity this afternoon, that this is in fact a by right use on for this
property. By granting the waiver this evening, it would allow Ennstone to improve the site design.
The landscaping that will be added into the buffer area will be substantial. The road will be
located actually further away from the residential properties. There is an existing wooded buffer in
the area boundary between the two properties. It is heavily wooded, and only a partial amount of
the woods will be cut out for the grading. She asked to reserve any extra time available for the
rebuttal. She stated that Ken Crussnick of Ennstone was present if there were any questions
regarding the industry practices or procedures.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone else present to speak regarding the application.
Mr. Stephen Blaine, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Scott Griggs, stated that they were
residents of Cedar Hill neighborhood and had lived at 2028 Cyprus Drive for sixteen years. He
noted that the Griggs are in opposition of this and their formal request was that they not grant this
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 508
waiver which would be necessary for the final site plan approval. The issues have been well
*loidentified in terms of the standard of review, and it has been articulated that there must be a
"' demonstration that there is an improvement in the site if you are to grant this waiver. As Mr.
Thomas has pointed out, there is a critical deficiency in terms of the entrance particularly for a
heavy industrial use such as this for northbound trucks to have to make a U-turn and have to
cross two lanes of through traffic on Route 29 before finding their way into the right turn lane into
this site. The issue is not one of stacking. It is hard to imagine, although it could be possible, to
have so many trucks delivering materials to this site that there would be the issue of stacking.
The issue is the movement of fast traveling southbound traffic on Route 29 encountering slow
moving heavily laden trucks with materials. There had been a recommendation from the staff to
address this that actually would have moved the crossover. That would have required
conversations with the owner of the mobile home park in accommodation to allow the Cyprus Hills
Neighborhood to access their neighborhood. It does not appear from the file or the record that
that was pursued. He pointed out that he had just been made aware of the official determination.
He noted that there was nothing that they could do tonight given that the Zoning Administrator has
given that determination. Although, he did believe that the Planning Commission was an
aggrieved party that could appeal that decision. He stated that it was hard to imagine that a use
such as a lime or gypsum manufacturing or processing would require a special use permit, yet a
concrete manufacturing or mixing use which uses a part of its product cement or lime, would not
require a special use permit. They think what was intended by the provision was that the applicant
relies upon is what is referred to as precast concrete. In other words a mixing and manufacturing
of a final product and then distribution. That would explain the inconsistency between those two
uses and a special use permit. He understood that might be an appropriate inquiry for the Board
of Zoning Appeals, but he felt there was a legitimate issue there. It is hard to imagine a more
incongruous use with a neighborhood than a ready mix plant. You can look at ready mix plants in
the area. He noted that he has been involved in plenty of projects on Route 29 and the corridor,
which he just could not imagine that this is compatible or meets the standards of this review. He
pointed out that he would be happy to answer any questions.
%WW Mr. Rieley invited any further public comment.
Ms. Valerie Long asked to make a few comments in response to Mr. Blaine's comments and
reiterate that that the issue is not the criteria in the ordinance is not the criteria that the
Commission should consider in determining whether they should grant the waiver or not. The
focus is on whether the site is improved or not and not about traffic issues off site. She believed
that the issues regarding traffic that Mr. Blaine has raised are beyond the scope of the waiver. It
may be within the scope of this site plan application, but they are beyond the scope of the waiver.
In addition, VDOT spelled out their concerns regarding traffic off site and Ennstone has
accommodated their request and has addressed their request to their satisfaction. The Site
Review Committee has granted approval of the preliminary site plan subject to the granting of this
waiver and several other standard conditions prior to final site plan approval. She stated that to
her understanding they have addressed all of VDOT's concerns regarding the traffic issues there.
In addition, it was unclear to what Mr. Blaine was speaking of regarding an additional proposed
access through the adjacent residential property. For what it is worth, she added that the owner
of the adjacent residential land has been very cooperative with Ennstone and with the current
owner of the land that Ennstone would use. They have already granted stormwater drainage
easements and other things that are part of the normal site plan development process.
Finally, she was sure that they have concluded in Ms. McCulley's official determination that the
uses of a concrete mixing plant and a cement manufacturing plant are in fact quite distinct and
she felt that her logic was very sound and very clear on that point. She thanked the Commission
for their time they have taken on this.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Rieley brought the matter before the Commission for
discussion and action.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 509
Ms. Hopper asked Mr. Kamptner if he agreed with Mr. Blaine that the Planning Commission has
the standing to appeal that determination.
Mr. Kamptner stated yes, because State law allows any person aggrieved or any officer, boards,
bureau or department of the locality to appeal an official determination.
Mr. Rieley stated that he had a couple of specific questions about the grading and buffering.
Since the engineers for the project are here he asked if they would come forward. He asked what
level of compaction you would normally require under this roadway and the adjacent side slopes.
Tom Gale, of Roudabush and Gale, stated that as far as he knew the Engineering Department
would require CDR's on this road and would be built to State standards.
Mr. Rieley stated that was normally 95 to 100 percent compaction, and Mr. Gale agreed.
Mr. Rieley asked how far out that would go from the edge of road and if this was tested.
Mr. Gale stated that CDR's are normally done on the roadway. He noted that is he was
concerned about the shoulders, he pointed out that many times that is not tested. In this
particular case, this will be a curve and gutter road. There will be compaction done obviously to
put the curve in. But in terms of the testing, there would not be any shoulders on this road
because of the curb and gutter.
Mr. Rieley noted that it was fairly level until the slope starts to slope off. The other question that
he had was if staff could give a better understanding of the existing character and quality of the
buffer that is there.
Mr. MacCall noted that as Ms. Long stated, there is an existing tree line and shrub pines out there.
*40W Mr. Rieley stated that conversely what they are subtracting from the other side would equally
subtract from that. What he was trying to get a handle on was that it seemed to him that the
benchmark for our consideration is the degree to which what is proposed here will equally serve
the neighbors that are there now.
Mr. MacCall stated that it will take a while for the planting to grow and provide screening.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant revised the plan showing this road coming into the site and
combining the access easement with their property so that it will be under one ownership. He
noted that the area where buffering is proposed is an access easement, which will be used as the
access.
Mr. MacCall stated that this parcel is actually a 40-foot strip pointing out that they are proposing to
vacate the easement and add that strip to this parcel.
Mr. MacCall stated that they were planning to vacate this strip and add that 50 feet to the
additional portion of the existing parcel. That is how things change.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that was what created the need for the buffer.
Ms. Hopper asked if that plan was abandoned and that access easement was used would there
be any requirements for waivers.
Mr. MacCall stated that when the plan came in, the Zoning Department had already made that
determination that a waiver of that buffer would not be necessary.
Ms. Hopper noted that brought up the question whether they should appeal Ms. McCulley's
determination.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 510
05
Mr. Rieley stated that there were two issues before the Commission. The first is whether the
Commission should appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. The specific issue of the waiver
itself needs to be addressed. He noted that he had a couple of concerns regarding the waiver.
When you grade almost to the property, as this will do, and then go back in and plant with 4 to 5
foot high mixed evergreen trees in a setting that has native volunteer growth coming in, it is hard
for him to say that equates and that is an equal buffer. It seems that is the basic on which their
decision should be made. He was persuaded that the truck traffic on Route 29 probably will not
result in a vast improvement over the existing situation as it was stated to us. Nevertheless, he
was not inclined to base a decision on the waiver on the traffic. He felt that the decision on the
waiver should be based on its effectiveness as a buffer. He felt that this mixture of trees on well
compacted Albemarle County soil is not going to result in an improvement in that buffer for many
years. The greatest number of trees, the Leyland Cyprus, (54 of them) are subject to a disease
that is wiping them out in great numbers and there is no known cure for it. He noted that was just
a matter of the plant selection. It seems that what that is before them, he could not support the
waiver and the current proposal. He stated that it was pretty clear that there was about 6 feet of fill
up to the buffer line. This plan is executable without the waiver. In particular, because of that, it
was encumbered upon the applicant to demonstrate exactly what the ordinance requires them to
demonstrate which is that it will be an improvement.
Mr. Craddock stated that the traffic concerns were taken care of with the widening of the entrance
and that new cross over taper lane. He stated that he was out on Route 29 today and there was
pretty good site distance when you look back north as you are turning to go south. He pointed out
that unlike the Luckstone property where there is no place to pass, this property has an extra lane
where someone could go around the truck. As far as the buffer, that existing treeline is still on the
mobile home park side and it appears that there will be whole lot more planting in there. It is true
that they will probably take a lot longer to get to a substantial size than what is there now. It
appears that it might be a better situation right in there. He stated that this was a good plan and
that he would support it.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Craddock in supporting the waiver. He noted that his concern was
with the traffic to put it out to see if it could be dealt with better. He stated that he would have to
give Ennstone a plus on their water usage. They are capturing 100 percent of their stormwater on
site in a storage tank that holds 150,000 gallons and then they are recycling that back through
their plant. That will provide them with 20 to 30 percent of their water needs and all of their
stormwater will be retained on their property.
Mr. Finley stated that he would support it assuming that in reviewing the site plan that minimum
screening requirements are met. He supported the waiver.
Ms. Hopper stated that she did not support the waiver, but she did agree with Mr. Thomas about
the positive aspects of the water processing. She agreed with Mr. Rieley's concerns about the
buffer. She also was compelled by Mr. Blaine's letter to question and want to understand the
reasoning behind this zoning decision. She pointed out that there seems to be an ambiguity and
would support appealing this to have the issue examined. She felt that the issue needs to be
clarified.
Mr. Finley stated that he had no concern about that issue.
Mr. Thomas stated that he was content with this use being by right
Mr. Kamptner stated that the official determination was attached to the other information
distributed tonight.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 511
M
Ms. Hopper apologized that she did not see the letter and had not read it.
Mr. Rieley asked the other Commissioners if there was a proposal next to where you live that you
would rather not look at, he challenged them to look at an existing wooded area and see if they
think that a cleanly graded area with a bunch of 5 foot nursery trees put in it is as good and is an
equal buffer. He asked that they apply it as to it were your house.
Mr. Finley moved for approval of SDP-2002-126 Ennstone Concrete Mixing Plant Final Site Plan
Buffer Disturbance Waiver.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
The motion was approved (3:2). (Hopper — No, Rieley — No)
Mr. Rieley stated that the waiver was granted.
Ms. Hopper stated that she read the letter and understood the determination now, but still
disagreed with the ordinance, noting that was a different issue.
Items Requesting Deferral.
ZMA-02-01 Fontaine Avenue Condos (Sign # 77, 81) - Request to rezone 12.606 acres from
Highway Commercial (HC) to Residential (R-15) to allow 112 units. The property, described as
Tax Map 76 Parcels 12A and 12G are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north
side of Fontaine Avenue [Route #702] approximately .25 miles west of the intersection of Fontaine
Avenue and Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood
Service, in Neighborhood 6. (Michael Barnes) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO
NOVEMBER 19, 2002.
Mr. Rieley stated that the applicant requests deferral to November 19`n. He opened the public
hearing and asked if anyone from the public would like to address ZMA-02-01. There being none,
the request was placed before the Commission for action.
Mr. Thomas moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of ZMA-02-01, Fontaine Avenue
Condos, to November 19`n
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0).
Regular Items:
SDP 2002-112 Western Albemarle High School Softball Field Lighting Waiver Request -
The applicant requests a waiver of the outdoor lighting regulations in Section 4.17.4(a) of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Section 4.17.5(a) 2. The property,
described as Tax Map 56 Parcel 17C, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on
Rockfish Gap Turnpike [US Route # 250]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Rural Area. (Francis MacCall)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 512
011
SDP 2002-099 Albemarle High School Softball Field Lighting Waiver Request - The applicant
requests a waiver of the outdoor lighting regulations in Section 4.17.4(a) of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Section 4.17.5(a) 2. The property, described as Tax Map
60, Parcel 78A, is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on Hydraulic Road [Route # 743]
at the intersection of Hydraulic Road & Lambs Road [Route # 743]. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Area. (Francis MacCall)
Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Commission consider both applications at the same time.
Mr. MacCall presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.)
He pointed out that both requests and staff reports were very similar. The type of light poles or
fixtures that the applicants are proposing are the exact same ones that were recently approved at
the Monticello High School softball field. He stated that Mr. Strumbaugh from the Engineering
Department's capital improvements program provided some photographs that were taken from
that existing softball field at Monticello High School. He passed out the photographs for the
Commission's review. Remembering that what they were looking for in the ordinance is
essentially protecting the dark skies and decreasing the up light. The Engineering Department has
to have the waiver request approved before they can actually accept the bid for the construction
of the poles. He noted that was what they were looking for here. Staff is recommending approval
of the two lighting waiver requests for both Western Albemarle High School and Albemarle High
School. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Rieley asked why the waiver had to be granted before the bids are taken.
Mr. MacCall stated that the Engineering Department does not want to end up purchasing
something that does not meet the ordinance. They want to make sure that they have all of their
ducks in a row.
Mr. Finley asked if this was the same as what was approved previously, and Mr. MacCall stated
that was correct.
Mr. Thomas stated that in the staff report it stated that whatever was supplied has to meet the
safety standards. He stated that the recommendation stated that the plan addresses service
objectives identified for schools and parks and recreation as well as certain objectives for the dark
sky section. He asked if service objectives meant safety objectives.
Mr. MacCall stated that those are the objectives that are laid out on page 2. He stated that meant
services that Parks and Recreation provides which were objectives that were laid out specifically.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to see some evidence of an earnest attempt to make these
sports lighting facilities better. He noted that this looks like the same thing that they did 20 years
ago, except that it has a shield on it. He stated that he looked in both applications and did not see
an exploration for alternatives. He questioned why Albemarle County was not meeting its own
lighting ordinance. He noted that Albemarle County should be doing better than this. If it cannot
be demonstrated that we are trying to do better, then he was not inclined to support this.
Mike Strumbaug, Senior Project Coordinator with the Albemarle County Engineering Department,
stated that a study was done for Brownsville's lighting and cut off fixtures could not meet safety
standards for AIEF. He noted that nothing has changed for these jobs. He pointed out that he put
out a specification that limits the amount of light that can be let out to the sky. A full cut off would
exceed that specification. He pointed out that only one offer was received for Piedmont
Community College from Musgrove, which is the best that we can do. They have not received
anything else from any other manufacturer that meets the safety standards.
Katie Hobbs stated that she agreed with Mr. Rieley's point.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 513
Ms. Hopper stated that she would support this application this time, but asked that next time it was
advertised that staff follow the ordinance to see if they get other options. If that was not done and
140K another application comes through, then she would very likely not support it if it does not meet the
ordinance. She supported this application for safety reasons.
Mr. Finley suggested that they look at the ordinance regulations. He questioned if they have an
ordinance requirement that cannot be met.
Mr. Craddock noted that as a softball player that he would like to see these lights at McIntire Park.
Mr. Finley moved for approval of SDP-2002-112, Western Albemarle High School Softball Field
Lighting Waiver Request.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
The motion carried (4:1). (Rieley —No)
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SDP-02-099, Albemarle High School Softball Field Lighting
Waiver Request.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried (4:1). (Rieley — No)
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:22 p.m.
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m.
Work Session:
ZMA-02-10 Sandy Lane (Sign #54, 55, 69) - Request to rezone 68.96 acres from Residential
(R-1) to Residential (R-6) to allow up to six units per acre. The concept plan shows 416
residential units in apartments and townhomes designed for university students. The property,
described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 24 is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District at 400
Stribling Avenue Extended. The property is bordered on the north by the Norfolk Southern
Railroad, on the west by Interstate-64, on the east by Moores Creek and on the south by Sunset
Avenue Extended. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density,
recommended for 3-6 units per acre, in Neighborhood (Margaret Doherty) DEFERRED FROM
THE OCTOBER 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Ms. Doherty presented the staff report. She stated that on May 215t of this year the Planning
Commission adopted a resolution of intent for Sandy Lane Residential Village to change the land
use map designation from neighborhood density to urban density. This resolution of intent was to
consider that comp plan amendment in conjunction with the update of the JPA/Fontaine Avenue
Area B Study. She noted that David would provide the status of where the Area B Study is after
her presentation. In the meantime, the property owner has submitted a petition to rezone the
property using the existing neighborhood density land use map designation. The zoning was
suppose to go from R-1 to R-6. There is a full description of all that in this document that
everyone received. The information is in the booklet. The rezoning application was submitted at
the end of August. It went through one round of review by the Site Review Committee. The
applicant asked that this get to public hearing in December. Staff prepared the staff report for the
work session at the end of October. At this point, the applicant has not made any revisions to the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 514
plan. There has not been much work on the Area B Study since they received this application.
The purpose of the work session is to get a early read from the Planning Commission on whether
*AV, or how to proceed with the Comp Plan Amendment proposal for development as envisioned by
the applicant in phases while the Area B Study is underway. Staff has prepared specific
questions which deal with the big picture issues that need to be answered so that staff can
continue the review of the rezoning. She noted that she could read over the questions or wait until
the applicant does his presentation.
Mr. Rieley asked that they wait.
Mr. Benish stated that he would give them the status of that. He pointed out that Mr. Cilimberg
has been involved with the selection committee so that he can fill in any details while he is here
that you might have. The City, County and the University are working together on this and are
now negotiating with a consultant. They are in the process of those negotiations and expect that
negotiation process will ultimately take approval by the City and the University in terms of the
budget and the details of the scope of work. There is an agreement on the consultant. It is
anticipated that the work would be completed within a ten-month period once they get under
contract. With three parties, it is difficult to identify precisely when they would be able to get them
under contract, but it would probably be within the next month or two. Therefore, they could
expect this study to be done within the calendar year or one-year from today.
Mr. Rieley asked that the applicant come forward to address the Commission.
Frank Cox, of the Cox Company, stated that he was representing Mr. Gordon Granger and Mr.
Doug Acton. Mr. Granger has been a long time resident of this property. The property is currently
in agricultural use. Over the years Mr. Granger has considered many uses for the property.
About two and one-half years ago, Mr. Granger and Mr. Acton got together to look at some of the
potential land use opportunities. As an outgrowth of that came a desire to develop a land use
program that would be consistent with the County's plans. We began an 18-month planning
process and had a work session on a larger scale comprehensive plan amendment. This
rezoning application is generated as a subset of that in order to give the applicant an opportunity
to come before you with under the current Comprehensive Plan's designation for this area. The
existing zoning is R-1, but the proposed zoning is R-6 with a gross development density of six
units per acre. The recommended land use that they see coming forward in the existing
Comprehensive Plan is for Neighborhood Residential and in that there is a recognition of multi-
family residential as being one of the forms of land use that might be appropriate. That is the
background and setting for this zoning map amendment. The regional location is fairly crucial in
that they are in the southwestern part of the City' neighborhoods 5 and 6. He presented a slide
presentation. As you can see the 69.4-acre property is in close proximity to most of the
University's and City's services and transportation opportunity. It is also in close proximity to
Interstate 64 and the by-pass. He noted that they went through a fairly extensive physical,
economical and environmental analysis of the property, looking at what might become of it under
an R-1 development program. A significant amount of this property is surrounded by restraints.
The property is surrounded by substantial development. The Fontaine Research Park, Forestry
Department, State Police Headquarters and the larger Redfields community that has not been
built out and the Jefferson Ridge project. They were trying to fit a land use opportunity in amongst
the trees. They needed to figure out the best way to access the project that was a key
consideration. They were looking at a single access into the property along the Stribling Extended
alignment that was contiguous with the backside of the Fontaine Research Park. You would form
a new intersection with Fontaine Avenue and you would have an upgrade of the existing
alignment terminating in the Sandy Lane Village itself. It would be a public street and would
generate very good levels of service for the operation of this particular project. There would be a
traffic signal at Fontaine. They have an opportunity to provide an emergency access to Sunset
Road. He introduced what they felt was a well -conceived and concentrated form of development
that would not utilize many of the sensitive slopes or environmentally sensitive areas of the
project. The project is perceived as two villages. They want to get started under the R-6 with the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 515
south village. The north village is a piece that they are holding until they see the outcome of the
comprehensive plan amendment that was submitted earlier. This is a project of interchangeable
�%w pieces on the second, third and fourth phases of their development concept. They have an
opportunity provided that you will grant us enhanced density consistent with what has been
applied for under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That includes the ability to do taller
structures with some structured parking. To get the project going, they were looking at an initial
development that would be phased and would have 220 to 240 units in the first phase which
would leave critical pieces that would be subject to a subsequent action by you under a CPA for
higher density. If that does not work out, they still have a plan to develop the site with the full 416
units. They were trying to design the site in accord with the Neighborhood Model principles. Mr.
Cox presented a slide presentation.
Mr. Rieley asked if it would be useful for staff if the Commission went through each question one
at a time. He apologized to the applicant for the missing two Commissioners noting that they had
delayed the meeting once in order to have a full Board. He asked staff to proceed with the
questions.
QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED AT THE WORK SESSION:
Staff believes that the following questions should be answered before staff can develop a
recommendation for this rezoning and the applicant can submit an updated plan for review.
Ms. Doherty started with question one as follows:
Is it appropriate to proceed with a rezoning of the property prior to completion of the Area
B Study? The County is in the beginning stages of a transportation and land use study ("The
Area B Study"), which will serve as a conceptual plan for future development in the Southern
Urban Area, and provide guidance for anticipating and addressing impacts resulting from that
development. It is intended as an update of a 1988 study of the same area. Until this study is
complete, it may be premature to approve Zoning Map Amendments for properties, which would
be effected by the outcome of the transportation plan. As of this date, the County has advertised
and is reviewing proposals for consulting services to perform the study. Once the consultant is
under contract, it is intended to take a year to complete.
Mr. Thomas stated that the transportation plan is probably the hold up for the entire project
proceeding. He suggested that there be a connector road between Sunset and Fontaine Avenue.
Mr. Benish stated that could potentially address one of the concerns that they believed was a
deficiency in this area. Based on the City concerns, there is a need for a better and more
intergraded East to West connection in this area. He noted that whether they could figure out
what that best location is while they go through the master planning process is one of the critical
issues that they were hoping that the master planning process will help us dictate. The ways that
the streams are oriented and where you cross the floodplain area and the impact of those areas
and how they could affect where the best siting on the property is. That is our concern here.
Generally, the concept for what they are doing is not necessarily inappropriate, but it is the details
on how it lays on the site related to the larger community needs.
Mr. Thomas asked if it would be premature to have a plan of a road being in there of some sort.
Would an easement of some sort work?
Mr. Benish stated that he would let the planner comment on that. He noted that is one of the
things that they expect as they go through this process. If the Commission feels that it is
appropriate to move forward to public hearing on this, that is one of the things that they would be
looking for from the applicant is to try to establish a location where an alternative road could go.
He clarified number one in that it sounds like staff can defer the rezoning. Actually, they cannot
defer the rezoning. What they are looking for is the applicant receiving the impact in what you
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 516
would consider in order for you to make the decision on the rezoning because the applicant wants
to move forward regardless.
Ms. Doherty noted that they could see in the attached site review comments from the VDOT and
from Engineering that they just started a very preliminary review of their purposal for the road
improvements. The gist of our comment is that the extent that in the development area, any
rezoning expects to have an urban road designed as an urban cross section and support multiple
modes of transportation that would have more than one connection to a public road. That is our
basis comment that their basic proposal does not meet. So even the existing land use plan
designation and so on, they would expect a greater road. Whether or not that would be the result
of the Area B Study that this would be the location, they did not know.
Mr. Benish stated that one of the things that they would like to understand is what the impact of
that interconnection is as it relates to the larger road system. He pointed out that the City was
concerned about overloading Stribling and Old Lynchburg Road. While this connection in theory
and on paper provides for another option, what does that do to the streets that are connected to it.
How does the City react that system and what roads do they agree to connect to it. That is the
other benefit from the Neighborhood planning process. You would get a picture community wide
of what this type of connection on this site would have to the larger network.
Mr. Thomas asked what would be the possibility of Stribling Avenue ever becoming a connector
into the City anyway. He asked if they thought that could ever be possible given that the City has
already blockaded Sunset Road.
Mr. Benish stated that he could not say. He noted that with the three parties involved with this
study, the process for master planning would allow for input from the City and the County in some
way. He pointed out that he had heard comments from a couple of the City meetings that he had
attended that were very concerned about the emerging development in the Sunset/Stribling
Avenue areas. Therefore, he knew they were very concerned about what kind of traffic impacts
they have. He pointed out that they did invite the City staff to this meeting.
Mr. Rieley stated that they might have to take some initiative on this. At a MPO meeting this
afternoon, the City presented its list of priorities of road projects, most of which were in the
County. He asked if any one else had comments on this broader issue of the timing and the
relationship to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Area B Study.
Ms. Hopper asked if it would be helpful to review a summary of the 1988 Area B Study and what
they were looking at now.
Ms. Doherty stated that she included the comments that were related to this site
Mr. Benish stated that study was a very classic old town land use study. There was not a lot of
details in design. They did have a corridor of design for Fontaine Avenue that was somewhat
used in the Fontaine Research Park Project. But from a land use stand point, there was not a lot
of detail in land use and mix of uses. This particular site, our land use recommendation is
consistent with the land use recommendation in that study which was for a high net density, but a
low gross of 1 to 4 density. The idea was that they would max out at that density using the higher
net density that was set aside for critical streep slope floodplain areas. This concept is fully
consistent with that. There is not much direction otherwise. He noted that the study did speak to
interconnected roadways. There was at one time a general proposal for an East to West
connection in this area, but he did not think it was addressed in that Area B Study.
Mr. Craddock stated that it would be a good improvement for access because Fontaine Avenue
appears to be a better access way than coming back in off of Sunset Avenue. A through way all
the way through that property would lend itself to more cut through traffic rather than just having
emergency access onto Sunset Avenue.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 517
05
Mr. Rieley stated that he had some concern about the relationship of this proposal for an R-6
rezoning within the context of an initiated ongoing Area B Study and within the context of getting
out in front of a larger CPA. It does seem to be a case of the cart being very seriously way out in
front of the horse. He felt that because this area has developed to the extent on its perimeter, it
raises the stakes because there are possibilities of connectivity that are unrealized in this plan.
There are opportunities of mixed use that can't be realized without a subsequent CPA change.
He felt that doing things in the correct order can mitigate all of these complications. He noted a
serious concern about pulling out a piece of this as a R-6 rezoning, when in fact they were looking
at the kinds of broader issues that might be compromised by developing a piece of this in a piece -
mill fashion. Staff needs to know where the best location should be given the larger road way
systems. The next step is as we get development plans, as has been done on Pantops, is to try
to develop a system that would comply. He noted that there were opportunities and restraints with
doing it that was.
Ms. Hopper stated that they know there is going to be a study related to this applications; often
this type of transportation information is not available. However, the lay out in this proposal
suggests an interconnection that does not seem to have the problems of mismatching grades.
She noted that this is positive for this proposal.
Mr. Finley stated he referred back to the 1988 report which says thus the proposed ZMA
application plan for Sandy Lane Village has been developed to respect the fundamental goals,
objectives and design guidelines in which the 1996 Comprehensive Plan has been founded. It
seems logical that if you are going to develop something and there has been a study made that
you propose to proceed within the guidelines and the goals of the study that has been done and
approved. He asked what was the major hang up that would hold back approval of a ZMA. He
asked if the road was the major thing or the through road from Fontaine Avenue to Sunset. What
was the major obstacle here that would hold this up?
Ms. Doherty stated as they were currently proposing in their rezoning nonresidential uses that are
not allowed in the zoning district that they are requesting. She noted that would be a major hang
up. Somehow they would have to rectify that. Their ultimate goal is to change the Comp Plan Map
to allow for that use. In lieu of that, they would have to figure out a way to change their zoning
request. The other major hang up is that there is a transportation study that does not have
implementations or solutions proposed yet. They don't know what they are. In lieu of that, they
would be building some transportation network to serve their development that might not comply
with that. In order to serve this site there are going to be stream crossings. Those are the three
major hang-ups. She asked what level of a stream crossing was acceptable.
Mr. Benish noted that this work session gives staff the opportunity to get the Commission's early
read before they begin reviewing these areas.
Mr. Finley asked if the PACT study would be done within the next year.
Mr. Benish stated that the consultant has estimated a 10-month time frame for its completion.
They were working through the negotiations of finding money with the three entities that are
committed to it, but there is a process that takes some time. If it was just the County working on
this, he could say that they would have them underway within the next 30 to 60 days. He pointed
out that he could not guarantee that with the City, County and University working together on it.
He stated that it would take approximately one year to have the study completed.
Mr. Finley asked if that study would come up with a specific transportation network.
Mr. Benish stated that the scope of work was actually modeled very much after the Crozet Master
Plan. He pointed out that it would not be as detailed as the Crozet Master Plan, but the plan
would be very similar to the first step. They were working towards completing Crozet's Master
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 518
Plan this year. That plan will establish a network recommendation for improvements through our
transportation system.
Mr. Finley asked once the study states that there would be a connection down to Sunset, how
many years would take before a developer could begin.
Mr. Rieley stated that if it were solely a public project, then it would be dependent upon public
funds. He pointed out with the VDOT's current funding; it could take a significant amount of time.
He noted that if the applicant would agree to a public system rather than a private system or at
least to allow for right-of-way for that or some phasing of that improvement, there is an opportunity
to advance this project. Again, that is part of the process that staff would like to be involved with
at this point at time with the applicant's rezoning. Staff cannot advise him exactly where that
network would be or how it should cross the roadway or stream based on that study. He noted
that if they could have some clarity and agreement from the community as to how the connection
should be made and where generally it should be made, then they could be working with the
applicant to get a significant portion of that built with this development.
Mr. Finley noted that the proceeding was dependent upon agreement with the development.
Mr. Rieley stated that they had a discussion about the overall overriding issue and we've had a lot
of views expressed on that. He hoped it boils down to something that is coherent and useful. He
stated that rather than go through each of these four items in detail, he asked if any one would
take issue with points of view that was expressed in each one of these questions as follows:
If the Planning Commission believes it appropriate to proceed before completing the Area B
Study, staff requests answers to the following questions:
1. "Does the Planning Commission agree with the applicant that this is a good location
Ah*W for a mixed -use development? The proposed zoning district, R-6, is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan designation of Neighborhood Density and the County's
goals for increased density in the Development Areas. However, it does not allow for the non-
residential uses proposed in the application. The applicant could propose a Zoning Text
Amendment to allow the commercial development in the R-6 or request R-15 with special use
permits and a proffered plan; PDMC with special use permits for residential uses; or the new
Neighborhood Model District which staff hopes will be adopted by early next year.
2. Is the transportation system proposed appropriate? The proposal includes a private
street with a rural cross-section, from Stribling Avenue to serve the proposed development. Is
this network appropriate, or does the Planning Commission agree with staff that any proposed
transportation system must connect this development to Stribling Avenue, extend to Sunset
Road, and be constructed at an urban standard which will serve multiple modes of
transportation, and provide two means of access?
Does the general layout of roads and improvements meet the intent of the
neighborhood model and other County ordinances? The buildings are grouped in a
private campus pattern with the parking shown in a ring around the buildings. Therefore, from
the perspective of the residents, the parking is relegated to the rear. From the perspective of
the Entrance Corridor and neighboring properties, the parking is in front of the buildings. Is
this development pattern acceptable? If non-residential uses are developed and become
available to the larger neighborhood, does the Planning Commission agree that they should
be designed to be more accessible from the public road, i.e. in a more 'main street' type
pattern?
4. Are the proposed disturbances to Natural Resources and Cultural Assets acceptable?
The subject property includes the following designations: Major and Locally Important
Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes, Surveyed Historic Sites, Perennial Streams,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 519
Wooded Areas, and Hundred Year Floodplain. These designations overlap and become a
contiguous area of importance within the stream buffers along Morey and Moores Creeks. It
is clear that a critical resource exists on the property and special attention should be made to
the preservation and enhancement of this resource in the development of the property. The
proposal includes vehicular crossings of Moore's Creek and Morey Creek and a greenways
trail in the floodplain. These disturbances will require special use permit approvals. What
level of disturbance will be acceptable?
Staff feels that the Commission's clear and direct answers to these questions is essential to
provide direction for the next steps of this rezoning."
Mr. Thomas stated that he agreed with number 2 that they connect this development to Stribling
Avenue and extend to Sunset Road and be constructed of an urban standard which will serve
multiple modes of transportation provided through means of access.
Mr. Rieley stated that he agree with all of the items with the caveat that that all of this should be
done within the context of the Area B Study and the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. He felt that they would not be in the position of finding themselves boxed in and
wishing that they had done something else.
Mr. Thomas stated that # 4 asked what level of disturbance would be acceptable. He asked for
an example of that.
Ms. Doherty stated that the issue was what kind of road this is. She noted that if he agreed with
number 2. She pointed out that they have not done that analysis and these are the issues that
they will get to while they are reviewing this. The applicant asked that this go to public hearing in
December. She noted that all of the stream crossings would require a special use permit. Those
are big issues on which this whole thing hinges. She asked what were the Planning
Commission's expectations of the level of analysis that will have been done when this comes to
public hearing. She asked when they would expect this to come back and what level of analysis
needs to be done when this does come back.
Mr. Rieley stated that the application should come back after the Area B Study is far enough along
to have drawn some fundamental conclusions and a mixed -use development should come with a
proposal that allows mixed -use development. It should not come allowing a piece of it to be
followed up with another piece that would then allow the mixed -use development. He felt that they
need to be able to have all of the pieces in order to evaluate the full picture.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Rieley.
Ms. Hopper stated that the only point that he said that she disagrees with is that if the Area B
Study gets postponed repeatedly, she felt that they still needed a detailed analysis. If there was
anyway for our staff to do the best they can at making an educated opinion about what is the best
road alignment, then she felt that they needed to just go ahead and go forward.
Mr. Benish stated that when the Commission passed the prior resolution on the CPA that was an
acceptance of the study so that it would be dovetailed with the larger Area B Study to respect the
desire to give them some feedback. He noted that the project could get bogged down. The idea
was to move this application along with that study or appropriately timed as we get information out
of that study in order for the County to make its decision on the rezoning. They wanted to try to
do it within the context of the study if at all possible.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Benish and Ms. Hopper since he did not think that this application
should be held hostage to a process that gets bogged down at some point. He noted that was
err why he did not think that the application should necessarily wait until the completion of the study.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 520
He would hope that they would have enough information from the bones of it so that they know
that they were not making a mistake.
Ms. Hopper suggested having the CPA and the rezoning before them at the same time or at least
have the CPA back on the table.
Mr. Benish stated that the County was the lead in managing the contract. They have had some
feedback. They hope to be moving forward with the negotiated costs in order have the money
appropriated in order to get under contract.
Mr. Craddock asked if the CPA was still being reviewed.
Mr. Benish stated that right now the CPA was not being reviewed at all. They have the traffic
study that they have made VDOT aware of. He pointed out that the consultant has been working
with VDOT as it relates to the rezoning. That study will be turned over to the consultant for
consideration. He noted that the public would be allowed to provide the consultants at the
appropriate time their proposals for the site. The consultants will then study the proposals.
Currently on the CPA they are waiting for the consultant work to really take it over.
Mr. Rieley stated that he hoped that their absent colleagues will have the opportunity to weigh in
on this. He stated that it did not have to be in a formal format. He thanked the applicant for a
good presentation.
Mr. Cox asked that the Commission take a peak at the South Village piece. He stated that the
sense of it was that they were putting the chart before the horse and that they were getting things
out of order. He noted that their sense of it was slightly different. The portion that they would like
to have the opportunity to move ahead with is an island in and of itself. By no fault of the current
property owner, they have 1-64, which is going no where, Sunset that is not going to get relocated,
a major overhead power easement, Moores Creek and the railroad. There is a focal point of
roughly 20 acres in that South Village that was going to be residential. They were seeking some
form of zoning acknowledgement that they can begin this process. He pointed out that they have
a willing owner, purchaser and planning team that can do and accomplish one thing that the
County and the State and the landowners have been talking about. They have been waiving their
arms concerning Old Ivy Road in trying to improve that for thirty years to allow ultimate densities
to be achieved on that. The team can achieve an improvement between the existing Fontaine
Avenue and the railroad tracks that really amounts to two-thirds of the total connection piece to
Sunset that otherwise may take, if it come in on the Area B Study, thirty years to accomplish. The
key issue that he has been asked to communicate is that this team that has the opportunity to do
this may not be together while the Area B Study goes on and on. He pointed out that they might
not like the outcome of the Area B Study. He felt that sending this back amounts to a moratorium
and he did not think that was fair to the property owner.
In summary, the Board held a work session regarding ZMA-02-10, Sandy Lane. Mr. Cox
presented a slide presentation. He noted that the applicant hoped to have the public hearing in
December. The purpose of the work session is to obtain the Planning Commission's reaction to
the proposal and how to pursue the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in phases while the Area B
Study is underway. The Planning Commission did not take any formal action.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting on
November 19, 2002.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 521
M
V. Wayne glimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 12, 2002 522