HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 17 2002 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
December 17, 2002
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 17, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Members attending were Jared Loewenstein; Rodney Thomas; Pete Craddock; Bill
Edgerton; Tracey Hopper; William Finley and William Rieley, Vice -Chairman.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development;
David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney; Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; and Frances
MacCall, Planner.
Other Items Not On The Agenda:
Mr. Loewenstein invited comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — December 4, and December 11, 2002
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on December 4 and
December 11, 2002 as follows:
♦ The Board received a presentation on a program that the County will be investigating in the
Six -Year Secondary Program called the Rural Rustic Roads Program. A pilot of that program
was conducted in Augusta County. There were some examples of results of that pilot
program. Staff hopes that the program has some potential in Albemarle County for some of
the unpaved roads in lieu of some of the more involved kinds of improvements that have
normally been the case in paving unpaved roads. There are some possibilities available for
other options on how we approach road improvements.
♦ The public hearing was held last week on Albemarle Place. The Board approved Albemarle
Place with one modification to the Planning Commission's recommended conditions. The
maximum square footage was changed from 65,000 to 70,000 square feet to reflect what was
shown on the one main street department store that was on two floors.
♦ The Board received the same presentation regarding the transportation issues on the Route
29 North Corridor Area. This was to obtain any information or input that the Board might have
to be considered as all of those particular alternatives are taken into account in further
studies.
♦ The Board approved SP-02-12 for 4749 Plank Road Driveway.
♦ The Board denied the Times Disposal Services special use permit.
♦ The Board approved the conditions of approval for Crown Orchard tower. A condition was
added that would allow that tower to be utilized in the Emergency Communications System
should that become a possibility.
♦ The Board reviewed the proposed schedule for the public hearing and other information
regarding the Mountain Overlay District. Currently, the Planning Commission is scheduled to
have a joint public hearing with the Board in March. Before that time staff wants to make
those of you who were not on the Commission at the time that this process from the Mountain
Overlay District took place to become familiar with what this district was all about and the end
result that the Board considered.
on
♦ The Board approved SP-02-051 for Violet Mawyer Mountain (Nextel) tower.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes: November 12, 2002
Ms. Hopper moved for approval of the consent agenda.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) for approval of the minutes of November 12, 2002.
Items Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-02-08 South Pantops (Sign #83,84) - Request to rezone 24.07 acres from PD-MC
(Planned District- Mixed Commercial) to PD-MC (Planned District- Mixed Commercial) and HC
(Highway Commercial) to amend a proffered plan to allow for an office use instead of a hotel use
and to allow for an expansion of Dennis Enterprises car dealership. The properties, described as
Tax Map 78, Parcel 73A and Parcel 13, are located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Hansen
Road in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center adjacent to Route 250. The Comprehensive Plan
designates these properties as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3. (Michael Barnes)
DEFERRED FROM THE OCTOBER 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 14, 2003.
AND
SDP-02-084 South Pantops Office Preliminary Site Plan - Request for preliminary site plan
approval to construct two office buildings totaling 43,200 sq. ft. on approximately 6.95 acres of a
24+ acre site. Property is zoned PD-MC (Planned Development - Mixed Commercial) and is
described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 73A. (Yadira Amarante) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL
TO JANUARY 14, 2003.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the applicant requests deferral of the applications to January 141h. He
opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding
the applications. He noted that the public hearing would be opened for comment again on
January 141h. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the applications back
before the Commission for action.
Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of ZMA-02-08, South Pantops and
SDP-02-08, South Pantops Office Preliminary Site Plan to January 14th.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) to allow deferral to January 14`h
SP-02-13 Dennis Enterprises Expansion - Outdoor Display (Sign #40) - Request for special
use permit to allow additional vehicle display parking in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2.b of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor storage and display. The property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcel 13, contains 3.748 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Rt.
250E (Richmond Road) approximately 1 mile from the intersection of Richmond Road and Rt. 20N
(Stony Pointe Road). The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial, EC Entrance Corridor. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in Development Area 3.
(Francis MacCall) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 14, 2003.
AND
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 594
on
SDP-02-34 Dennis Enterprises Minor Site Plan Amendment - Request for an approval of a
minor site plan amendment to allow for the expansion of an existing parking lot. (Francis MacCall)
APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 14, 2003.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the applicant requests deferral of the applications to January 14". He
opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding
the applications. He noted that the public hearing would be opened for comment again on
January 14th. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the applications back
before the Commission for action.
Mr. Thomas moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of SP- 02-13, Dennis Enterprises
Expansion — Outdoor Display and SDP-02-34, Dennis Enterprises Minor Site Plan Amendment to
January 141h
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) to allow deferral to January 141h
SP-2002-059 Townwood Mobile Home Park Amendment (Sign #64 & 65) - Request to amend
an existing special use permit (SP 99-074), which allows the expansion of the mobile home park,
by changing the conditions of approval requiring the relocation of several existing mobile home
units and the creation of new lots. This request is in accordance with Section 17.2.2.17 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allows for mobile home Parks in the R-10, Residential zoning district.
The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 8, contains 12.65 acres, and is located in the Rio
Magisterial District on Rt. 631 (Rio Road West) at the intersection with Townwood Drive [private].
The property is zoned R-10, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Urban Density in Neighborhood 1. (Stephen Waller) APPLICANT
REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 14, 2003.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the applicant requests deferral of the applications to January 14th. He
opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding
the applications. He noted that the public hearing would be opened for comment again on
January 141h. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the applications back
before the Commission for action.
Mr. Edgerton moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of SP-2002-059,Townwood
Mobile Home Park Amendment to January 14th.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) to allow deferral to January 141h
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-02-12 Charlottesville Piano (Sign #63 and 67) - Request to rezone .21 acres from LI, Light
Industrial to C1, Commercial to allow a furniture store that will sell and restore pianos. The
property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 163 is located in the Rio Magisterial District at the
intersection of Rt. 631 (Rio Road West) and Rt. 1403 (Berkmar Drive) approximately .25 miles
from the intersection of Rio Road and US Route 29N. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Office Service in Neighborhood 1. (Francis MacCall)
Mr. MacCall presented the staff report as follows
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 595
ZMA 2002-012 Charlottesville Piano
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone a parcel of land at the old WWW
Electronics building at the intersection of Rio Road West and Berkmar Drive from LI, Light
Industry to C-1, Commercial. A concept plan has been submitted for this property. A reduced
copy of the concept plan is provided as Attachment B.
Proffers are provided with the rezoning proposal that ensures the closure and improvement of the
entrance along Rio Road and permit a limited number of uses from the C-1 zoning district.
Petition for Rezoning: Request to rezone approximately .21 acres from LI, Light Industry to C-1,
Commercial to allow a piano sale and repair shop. The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel
163 is located in the Rio Magisterial District at the northwest intersection of Rio Road West [Route
631] and Berkmar Drive [Route 1403]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Office Service in Neighborhood 1. The tax parcel map/vicinity map is provided as Attachment A.
Character of the Area: The property is currently developed with one 2,428 square foot building
as well as appurtenant parking. It is within a development of office uses, is across from the
Berkmar Crossing retail/office development, and the Daily Progress building is located at the
south east corner of the intersection. Rio Road is developed with a variety of uses from Berkmar
Drive up to US Route 29.
Zoning and Subdivision History In June of 1982, ZMA-82-007 was approved to rezone the
property from CO, Commercial Office to LI, Light Industrial with the proffer that the only use
allowed at the site was the manufacturing of semi -conductors. In 1992, a plat was approved
dedicating right of way for the extension of Berkmar Drive. The eventual improvement of Rio
Road and extension of Berkmar Drive physically changed the site by removing parking spaces
both from the front and back of the building, closing the entrance on Berkmar Drive, and made it
so the building is no longer setback properly.
Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has stated that the rezoning of the
parcel would allow for the retail sale of used pianos and restoration of old pianos, which would
require large volume of space, have few employees, and generate little traffic.
By -right Use of the Property: The property is currently zoned LI, Light Industry per ZMA-82-007,
which only allows the use of semi -conductor manufacturing. The zoning of the property needs to
be changed to allow any other use of the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with proffers.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Office Service in
Neighborhood 1. There are no aspects of the County's Open Space Plan that are affected with
this proposal.
The Neighborhood Model
Twelve principles of development are set forth in the Neighborhood Model. A staff analysis of the
manner in which this development proposal addresses the principles is included below.
Pedestrian Orientation — Currently there are sidewalks along Berkmar Drive and Rio Road,
which provide for continual pedestrian access to all of the properties along that portion of Rio
Road.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks — There is currently a travelway to
Greenfield Terrace that connects to Berkmar Drive.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 596
En
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale — The existing building is two stories, however, it
projects the look of a one story along Rio Road since it is built into the slope. No changes are
proposed nor recommended for the design of the site.
Relegated Parking — The majority of the parking for this building is located behind the building,
thus relegated from Rio Road. The parking is not relegated from Berkmar Drive.
Mixture of Uses — Currently the area surrounding the parcel has a mixture of uses. Directly
across from the subject parcel, on Berkmar Dive, a dance studio has residential apartments
incorporated into the building. In addition, a Special Use Permit was recently approved to allow
residential use within the CO zoning a couple of parcels west of the subject parcel along Rio
Road. There may be an opportunity for this site to have a mixture of commercial and residential
uses given the site constraints. The site is constrained by the size of the building and the amount
of existing parking. If a portion of the building were to be used for residential then the amount of
required parking would be reduced for the commercial use that would occupy the remaining
space.
Parks and Open Space — Agnor Hurt Elementary School and the related recreational space is
within walking distance that is connected by sidewalk.
The principles referenced below are not criterion for assessment because of the existing
development on the site and the intention to maintain it with commercial development.
Neighborhood Centers — This one development cannot be considered a neighborhood center or
be defined as being part of one.
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths — There are no new roads proposed.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability — No housing is proposed.
Redevelopment — There has been no proposal to redevelop this site.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain — There is no regrading proposed.
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas — The parcel is located well within the Development
Area boundary.
Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (Commercial Lad
Use Standards, pp. 23) (Attachment E)
The standards that are laid out in this section of the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial Land
Use are already being met or are not applicable to this rezoning proposal.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district The proposed district is C-1, Commercial. The intent of the C-1 zoning district is to permit
selected retail sales; service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented to central
business concentrations. Staff believes that allowing this zoning for the proposed use and most of
the uses that are the same for both the C-1 and CO zoning district will essentially allow for uses
consistent with the CO district. The proffers will bring the C-1 district in conformity with the Office
Service designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 597
Public need and justification for the change LI zoning is no longer viable at this location.
Rezoning the property is necessary for anything other than the manufacturing of semi -conductors.
Rezoning the property to C-1 zoning while proffering the particular uses for the site is an
appropriate and necessary change.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation — Impacts on transportation networks will not be significant as a result of allowing
the proposed use or any of the proffered uses. In addition, given the physical limitations of the
site for parking and building expansion, it is unlikely that a high volume use could be located here.
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are available to serve the site.
Stormwater Management — The change of use of the site will not affect the stormwater runoff of
the site.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources — No impacts are anticipated
on any County's cultural or historic resources.
Site Plan — A site plan amendment will be necessary to correct some minor onsite changes and
to address the closing of the Rio Road entrance (Attachment D). In addition, with the parking
onsite being limited, it must be noted that uses other than furniture and home appliances (sales
and service) that are permitted in the proposed district may require additional parking spaces.
SUMMARY: Staff finds that this rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and good
zoning practice. Specifically, it further allows economic development activities that provide
desirable employment and enlarge the tax base, and would provide for similar properties to be
zoned similarly.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The applicant has proffered the by right uses of the CO, Commercial Office zoning district that
are the same as the C-1, Commercial zoning district.
2. The rezoning allows a compatible use to be incorporated into an existing development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone .21 acres from LI, Light Industry to C-1,
Commercial with proffers as written in Attachment C.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the Commission had any questions for staff. There being none, he
opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Mr. Tom Shaw, applicant, stated that he did not have anything to add.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that Don Burch was the only person listed on the sign-up sheet to speak.
He asked that Mr. Burch come forward to speak at this time.
Mr. Don Burch stated that he worked for both Resorts and C.D. Hammer, who owns the two
buildings occupied by Resorts. Mr. Hammer's land adjoins this property on the north side. They
have no objection to Charlottesville Piano whatsoever and feel that they will make a good
neighbor. He noted that their last neighbor WWW Electronics was not a good neighbor. He
stated that he had several questions that he had talked with Mr. MacCall about. He noted that Mr.
MacCall had provided him with a lot of the answers. He pointed out one concern with the staff
*AW report that shows the travel way to Greenfield Terrace as being a possible easement of ingress to
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 598
cm
and from this property. There is no such ingress or egress from Greenfields Terrace that would
accommodate that property. The proffer proposed by the applicant shows the closing of the Rio
Road access as it borders the property. The access that he understood from Mr. MacCall that
would be available from Rio Road goes over an existing roadway. He stated that roadway as he
understood, according to Mr. Ivan Lettner who is the owner of Old Dominion Prosthetics and the
land next door, stated that he owns that roadway and that there is no easement available. He
pointed out that Mr. Lettner could not be present tonight and asked that he bring this matter to the
Board's attention. He stated that he had a letter for the Commission. (The letter dated December
17, 2002 from Don Burch is attached to the minutes.)
Mr. Loewenstein asked that he present the letter to the Secretary. There being no further public
comment, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for action. He
asked Mr. MacCall to enlighten the Commission on this topic.
Mr. MacCall stated that in the review of the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model that
those were the interconnected streets and transportation networks out there at the moment. He
noted that he had talked with Mr. Burch. He stated that there is a travelway there and he was just
pointing out that the travelway interconnects to those roadways. He stated that he could not find
actual deeds for the access easement. There is a plat in the Planning Office from the Rio Road
improvements in 1992 that did show an access easement. He pointed out that some decision
was made that it was unnecessary for the County to review the plat.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was an access easement or not.
Mr. MacCall stated that from the plat that he looked at that there is an access easement. He
stated that he spoke with Mr. Lettner and he was under the impression that there was something,
but he was not sure exactly what it was. He noted that this is the only access that this property
has from Rio Road. It has been used that way since 1992. The access for this property was cut
off from Berkmar Drive in 1992 in the original plan. Mr. MacCall stated that from what he could tell
the users of the site had set that access up.
Mr. Benish stated that based on the road projects that were done, that there was an
understanding that this property had access. Staff was under the impression that they had
access until recently when the adjacent property owner questioned whether this access exists.
Apparently, the access was there at the time that they did the road project. From the best that
they could tell, staff felt that this project has access.
Mr. Thomas asked if it was a joint access. He asked what could be done with this property if they
could not use the access.
Mr. MacCall stated that they would not be able to park on the site.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that unless they received a definite answer to this question, he did not
think they could take an action.
Mr. MacCall stated that there were a number of things on this site that need to be updated with a
site plan. The closure of the entrance and those types of things are usually handled at the site
plan process. As Mr. Benish stated, staff was under the impression that the site had the access
and nobody said otherwise. Staff was going with the way the site has been used for the last
twenty years.
Mr. Kamptner stated that Mr. MacCall was right, that typically access issues could be handled at
the site plan stage. He noted that one of the problems was that the owners had proffered to close
one of the entrances.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 599
09
Mr. Rieley stated that the amount of parking for this commercial entity is not nearly the sufficient
amount at the front of the building.
Mr. MacCall stated that there was only one space technically to use off the joint easement that
they have.
Mr. Rieley noted that there was no access from the front to the back of the building. If there is no
legal access to the area, then they don't have a parking area and can't meet the parking
requirements for Zoning. He asked Mr. Kamptner if there is no deeded easement and since this
has been used exclusively to serve that parking lot since 1992, is there a right to the access that
is generated by the use.
Mr. Kamptner stated not yet, and the right was something that the owners would have to establish
in Court.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that this issue was pretty fundamental. He asked if there was other
discussion or questions for staff. He stated that he was not sure if removing the second proffer
would make it all right. He stated that they needed to establish the access legally.
Lane Bonner stated that he was present for the applicant. He stated that his main point was that
the easement does exist and that he could prove that tomorrow. He asked for approval of the
request contingent upon that.
Mr. Benish stated that staff has a deed receipt from the Commonwealth of Virginia that states that
easement has been established. He stated that there was a plat showing this. He noted that the
adjacent property owner was questioning the easement. He stated that it was left up to the
Commission on whether they felt comfortable acting on this.
Mr. Edgerton asked that the plat be passed around.
Mr. Rieley felt that the Commission could act on the application tonight even though there is a
disputed issue regarding the access. He noted that this was an advisory opinion. He suggested
that they take action tonight contingent upon resolution of that. Other than this one issue, this
application seems to be pretty straightforward. He moved for approval of ZMA-02-12,
Charlottesville Piano, with the conditions as recommended, the proffer as written in Attachment C
and with the request that the access issue be made concrete and be brought to the Board of
Supervisors.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion.
The motion for approval carried unanimously (7:0) with the conditions as previously stated.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that ZMA-02-12, Charlottesville Piano would be heard by the Board of
Supervisors on January 81h.
ZMA-2000-009 North Pointe PUD (formerly Towers Project) (Sign # 97, 98, 99) - ZMA-2000-
009 North Pointe PUD (formerly Towers Project) (Sign # 97, 98, 99) — Request to rezone 269.4
acres from RA Rural Areas to PD-MC with special use to allow a mixture of commercial and
residential uses with a maximum of 893 residential units and approximately 709,000 square feet of
commercial and office space. The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 20, 20a, 20a1,
20a2, 20a3, 22h 22k, 23, 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d, 23e, 23 f, 23g, 23h, 23j and 291 , contains 269.4
acres and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District north of Proffit Road, east of Route 29
North, west of Pritchett Lane and south of the Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Regional Service, Office Service, Urban Density (6 - 34 dwelling units
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 600
ER
per acre) and Neighborhood Density (3 - 6 dwelling units per acre) in the Hollymead Community.
(Elaine Echols)
AND
SP-2002-72 North Pointe - Request for special use permit to allow residential uses in
accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for residential uses in a
PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols stated that the agenda as well as two of the displays were showing this as North
Pointe PUD and that was the former zoning classification. The zoning classification requested is
PD-MC with a special use permit. She noted that it was advertised properly. She acknowledged
in reviewing the report for tonight, staff found several typos of which she would apologize. The
first error had to do with Attachment N that put the attachments a little off the mark. The second
error dealt with the mobile home park across Route 29 that was not Townwood but Cedar Hill.
She summarized the staff report. (See the attached staff report.) The zoning PD-MC requires an
application plan and proffers that are also provided in the packet. The existing conditions include
several streams, floodplains, steep slopes, heavily wooded areas and topography that varies.
The proposal provides for a variety of uses and is generally in keeping with the colors in the land
use plan which are also attached. The proposed plan shows several distinctive areas. She noted
the proposed location of the single-family dwellings, apartments, townhouses and the large
commercial area. She pointed out that the floodplain was not shown on any of the plans that the
Commission has seen, but she estimated the location. One portion of the property is proposed for
a lake that would cover up this stream. A portion of this stream is proposed to be piped.
Regarding transportation, a spine road is proposed generally in this location because it has to
become a private road to get to this point. She noted the road that VDOT has some interest in.
She pointed out that the attachment make the staff report about 100 pages, which was a lot to
review. She noted that she would not take the Commission through a detailed review trusting that
they had read at least the substance of the report. Staff believes that the proposal falls short from
a recommendation for approval in many ways. The foremost significant one is that the design is
not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Significant environmental resources on the site
have not been respected. Traffic generated by the development will have impacts that have not
been proposed for mitigation. The proffers are not clear in most ways and at this point they are
not meaningful in terms of dealing with the impacts of the project. Staff has received two new sets
of information that had been provided after the report was written. One set of the new information
was sent in the Commission's packet. Another set of information was the fiscal impact analysis.
This fiscal impact analysis was requested by the applicant to be performed today. Staff has not
looked it over to know what it says or what it means. The applicant would like to refer to it in his
presentation. For that reason, staff has distributed a copy of the fiscal impact analysis to the
Commission for review. With that, staff will stop and allow the Commission to ask questions about
this particular project.
Mr. Finley asked if in any case would they be allowed to access from Route 29.
Ms. Echols stated that it depends on what VDOT will allow. Staff was concerned with access
being provided from both directions to serve the properties that don't have the benefit of the new
crossover. Staff wanted to make sure that the other parcels direct access to Route 29 would not
be removed as a result of this project claiming all of the crossovers. Staff would not want these
parcels served by access directly off Route 29 but would want them to take access off of the spine
road or where the public roads come in.
Mr. Finley asked if in any case they would not be allowed to access Route 29.
Ms. Echols stated that it would depend on what VDOT would allow them to have, but they would
not have the ability to turn left or right. Staff has asked that they have the ability to be served by
roads that cross these spine roads.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 601
Mr. Edgerton stated that they have left off the white part, but show an apartment complex. He
asked why that was not part of this application.
Ms. Echols stated that everything shown in white they do not own, but they were trying to
demonstrate that they were providing access to this parcel for potential development through this
parking lot. They can see that maybe in the future that is how this would be developed and how it
could fit in. But that section is not proposed as part of the rezoning. It is being shown for
informational purposes. They are not including this as part of their application plan right now.
This plan shows how access could be provided through here for the Korean Church. The final
plans have not been done, but this is something that could be worked out in the future to keep
them from being blocked off.
Mr. Thomas stated that under transportation improvements on page 5, it says that access to this
area from Pritchett Road is prohibited from this development.
Ms. Echols stated that the Land Use Plan has a statement that says access to this property from
Pritchett Road should be prohibited. She noted that the language there was very strong. She
introduced Kim Cameron, a new Engineer in the County Engineering Department, who has
assisted with the traffic issues and knows the answers to the stormwater questions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any further comments for staff. There being none, he
opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's comments.
Good evening — My name is Don Wagner — I am a resident of Albemarle County and have been
with Great Eastern Management and appearing before this body since 1972. 1 hope to use a
little less than my allocated time tonight so we can have a few extra minutes after the hearing from
the public. You have read the staff report. On some items, we and staff respectfully agreed to
disagree before their report was prepared. We were pleased to see that rather than recommend
disapproval, the report simply states that staff cannot recommend approval at this time. We
continue to contest a number of issues in the report, and for the record will respond point by point
in writing. Given the time available tonight, I will limit my comments to what we believe are the
most import aspects of our proposed plan. We do not claim to have a finished plan complete in all
detail. We believe the clear language of the Zoning Ordinance requires applicants, at the
rezoning stage for Planned Development Districts, to provide a plan which presents an overall
vision of the development and which commits the applicant to providing additional detail,
acceptable to the County, at the site plan and subdivision stages. The Comprehensive Plan calls
for the North Pointe property to provide Regional Service along with Urban Density and
Neighborhood Density residential uses with Office Service as a transitional use between the two.
In the Regional Service area, we propose several well known regional and national retailers, most
not currently available in Albemarle County, but which have other stores within driving distance
that are currently attracting local customers, and their sales tax revenues. In the residential area
we propose a combination of housing types, which allows us to achieve the overall density
contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with the recent adoption of the
Neighborhood Model principles as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, we propose a town center,
with small retail, office, public service and "above the store" residential units in the area between
the Regional Service and purely residential sections. Over one half of the residences in North
Pointe will be within one half mile of this town center. We believe that our overall vision meets the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan to the greatest extent possible and the staff report states
that QUOTE "the project is consistent generally with the land use plan designations for the
Hollymead and Piney Mountain Communities." It is our understanding from their report that staff
has two main concerns. One is transportation; the other is design. Regarding transportation,
Wilbur Smith and Associates spent two years getting County and VDOT agreement on the
parameters for a traffic study, making the study and securing VDOT approval. Briefly stated, all
parties are in close agreement as to the improvements North Pointe should make on Proffit Road
and on US 29 north of Proffit, and in response to the Staff Report we agree to dedicate public road
easements to provide other properties fronting on 29 access to public roads within North Pointe.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 602
However, a recent staff report, on 29 North in general, suggests that no additional development
be allowed on 29N until there is additional traffic capacity between the South Fork of the Rivanna
and Airport Road. If that logic is followed, additional housing would not be allowed in Crozet until
US 250 West is widened and VA 240 is rebuilt, additional development east of Charlottesville
would not be allowed until the 250 Bypass is widened, and US 250 East is further improved, and
Albemarle Place would not be allowed until both the Hydraulic-29 Intersection and the interchange
at 250 Bypass and Emmett Street are improved. I cannot believe this scenario is either
desirable or acceptable. In regards to design ... I was a member of the DISC committee. That
committee acknowledged that the Neighborhood Model, while an excellent model, does not fit all
circumstances and that other models of development, such as industrial and large-scale retail, are
both valid and needed. I believe this position has been affirmed by most and possibly all
members of the Board of Supervisors. To the greatest extent practicable, we have incorporated
neighborhood principles in the North Pointe residential and town center areas. As is almost
always the case in Albemarle County, existing topography was an important consideration and we
have here tonight Ron Keeney of Keeney and Associates who can speak to that in detail. In
planning North Pointe, we visited communities in the Washington, Maryland, Northern Virginia and
Richmond areas and in several other southeastern states and talked to a number of successful
homebuilders, here and elsewhere. We were accompanied on two of those trips by members of
County staff. We were particularly concerned when we saw evidence of neo-traditional, new
urbanist communities with commercial components which had either failed or showed clear
evidence of being on the road to failure. Based on what we learned, and on over 30 years
experience, we believe that North Pointe as presented can become a successful community. It
will incorporate a mixed use, interconnected, pedestrian -oriented community which incorporates
essential elements of the 12 Principles recommended by DISC and subsequently added to the
Comprehensive Plan. Under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 8.5.4 the Planning
Commission is charged with considering applications for Planned Districts and reporting their
findings on four items to the Board of Supervisors. I will not read the entire text of the ordinance,
but briefly the four items are:
a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of Planned District proposed.
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services.
c. Adequacy of evidence on unified control of the property.
d. Specific modifications of regulations requested by the applicant.
We believe North Pointe tests positive on items a, b and c. We do need two modifications. First,
we request setbacks from adjoining property to be as shown on the plans before you. The most
significant setback modification would allow grading within 20' of the property line east of the
Regional Service area. The second modification would allow some grading on steep slopes.
Sheet C3 of our plans shows areas of steep slopes and areas where roads or commercial
development impact those slopes. In both cases, we propose that the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors provide guidance, after which we will work out details with staff, for final
approval by the PC or Board as necessary. These issues are site specific and can be mediated.
We respectfully request that tonight you provide your recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors, as set forth in Section 8.5.4. We recognize that because our request includes a
Special Use Permit as well as a rezoning that you have the opportunity to recommend approval
subject to conditions and we have no problem with that. There are several of us here from Great
Eastern as are representatives from Wilbur Smith and Associates, our traffic consultants and
representatives from two architectural firms, all of whom have been working on North Pointe for
two years. We would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the sign-up sheet has three names on it. He stated that the first
name was Cynthia Parry. He asked that anyone who was not signed up to see the secretary.
Cindy Parry, resident at Pritchett Lane, stated that she had brought along a few of her Pritchett
Lane neighbors who she would ask to stand. She noted that Pritchett Lane is the east boundary
of the North Pointe project. As you know, the County's Comprehensive Plan currently specifies
that North Pointe will have no access to Pritchett Lane. This provision resulted from a number of
w conversations with Charles Martin. They greatly appreciate Mr. Martin's efforts. Over the last
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 603
several years, they have had several discussions with people behind the North Pointe project.
The most important of their concerns was the issue of street access. They were very happy that
the developers listened to their concerns and created a plan for North Pointe that specifically
excluded access with Pritchett Lane. Given its history they were surprised and disappointed to
learn that the Planning Department staff report has recommended a reevaluation of the current
Comp Plan guideline that specifies no access to Pritchett Lane from the North Pointe project.
Eventually, the Planning Department believes that access to Pritchett Lane will help alleviate
some of the traffic congestion that will be created by the 893 dwellings in North Pointe as well as
the traffic drawn by the stores and shops that will inhabit the parts of North Pointe that are slated
commercial development. The proposal to link North Pointe to Pritchett Lane merits five
comments. First, as it currently exists, Pritchett Lane cannot handle additional traffic. The road is
hilly and curvy and has several blind spots. Any driver who uses Pritchett Lane to avoid Route 29
will likely be driving at a high rate of speed and that will put many of the pedestrians who use
Pritchett Lane at risk. Second, what is the point of this access? Where are these cars going to
go? The only logical answer is to Route 20. It is well known that Proffit Road with its many
curves cannot safely handle high volumes of traffic. The proposal to link North Pointe with
Pritchett Lane if implemented will unquestionably further increase the traffic on Proffit Road, which
is already at dangerous levels. Third, even if the Planning Department concludes that an
alternative route to Proffit Road is needed, the location of this route must be determined. Any
decision to link North Pointe to Pritchett Lane takes congestion and costs created by North Pointe
and imposes those costs on the Pritchett Lane community. This violates well known accepted
principles of hostile locations which dictate that those generating the costs should pay for those
costs. If the North Pointe community generates congestion, then the cost for relieving that
congestion should be borne by the North Pointe community in the form of a through road through
the North Pointe project itself. The Pritchett Lane community should not be asked to bear the cost
of that congestion. Fourth, they ask the Planning Commission to carefully consider the message
that it will send if it adopts the proposal that directly contradicts the Comprehensive Plan. Most
people would interrupt this action in a very simple fashion that the Comprehensive Plan is not
worth the paper that it is written on because the County officials are willing to ignore the plan when
the plan is inconvenient. Finally, access through Pritchett Lane would fundamentally change the
character of our perfectly attractive, family -oriented walkable vital neighborhood. This is a place
where children on bikes can take their poles down to the end of Pritchett Lane and go fishing.
They would lose all of this. They respectfully ask that the Planning Commission reject the
proposal for street access between Pritchett Lane and North Pointe, that you honor the promise
that you made to us by respecting the conversations that they have had with Mr. Martin between
Pritchett Lane and the developer, and the importance of the Comp Plan in guiding the County's
future roads.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the next speaker was Fred Gerke.
Fred Gerke, President of the Proffit Community Association, stated that he was not speaking
officially for the PCA tonight, but felt confident that he presents concerns of their community.
North Pointe will have a large impact on their community. When combined with UREF and the
Hollymead Towne Square it is quite intimidating. They will be transformed from a suburban rural
area to an urban suburban rural mix. Some of the changes will be good and others not depending
on where one places ones values and what one seeks in life. The main area of concern has been
and continues to be transportation issues. Of all the infrastructure needs it is an area where they
were most efficient. It is also the most detractable with little or no funding, competing jurisdictions
and groups, and a growing backlog of projects. They cannot continue to study and draw up plans
on transportation issues within the Route 29 corridor north of the Rivanna River. He stated that
he had read the staff report and felt it was thoughtful and hopeful. But as Yogi Bear has said that
he had the feeling that it was D6j6 Vu all over again. It is a nice plan and has some good ideas,
but maybe someday they would have some money and agreement among the parties involved.
He pointed out that they couldn't continue to dump more traffic on the same overburdened road.
Piecemeal improvements such as those contained in the North Pointe proffers will do little nor can
they expect individual developers to solve the problems. They must do something soon or do
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 604
something radical by making development for transportation improvements. Speaking personally,
he had watched the Towers, which was now the North Pointe project, for years with nervous
1*01 anticipation. He stated that he attended the meeting several years ago at Southern Middle
School, and the public meeting recently at Maple Grove Church held by the developer. He noted
that he understands the complexity and detail involved. A lot of time and effort has been put forth
to set a new and higher standard for development in Albemarle County. North Pointe as it is
presently configured with the incremental changes has a lot of unresolved detail. They like to
think of this area as a place that they choose to live and work as being some place special and
unique. If they want to maintain this quality, they need to seek and hold themselves to a higher
standard. North Pointe will be developed, but let's make sure that we do it right. North Pointe
needs to set an example for development in Albemarle County.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the next speaker was Charles Trachta.
Charles Trachta stated that he would like to ask a couple of questions. How many children will
this massive project reduce? Where will they go to school and what children will be pushed aside
for these children? How much water will these homes and commercial space take up? He asked
why it was so wrong that they think about planning ahead. They have North Pointe, Hollymead
and you already approved Albemarle Place, Belevedere Farms and many other projects going on
that will affect Albemarle High School, which is now at capacity. People are talking about
expanding Monticello High School since they only need 300 seats. He noted that they only need
300 seats if Monticello High School serves the area that it was built for. Even with the additional
200 seats that could have been put there, it would not take up what you are planning on building
in this County. Which children will be moved out? He pointed out that there had been many
promises made concerning the traffic. The people in Carrsbrook are still waiting for water and
sewer. The other thing that they were promised were schools. Now our children are being told
that they are getting redistricted out because children from the north are coming in. Developers do
not have to worry about schools because they can just walk away. He asked that the
Commission plan ahead for it and think about what we are gong to do. He suggested that the
Board of Supervisors should tell the School Board that they have a Comp Plan and that they
should read it. He voiced concerns over the water situation. He stated that he did not understand
why they don't have to talk about water here regarding these 800 homes and commercial space.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the next speaker was Jana Brredrs Reece.
Jana Briedis-Ruiz, ten-year resident of Pritchett Lane, stated that they should not have access to
the road. Several years ago they participated in a community planning session with the developer
that included Mr. Martin to come up with a plan that they all could live with. Two things that their
community agreed to not happen was that they should not have access from North Pointe to their
road. Another thing was that there should be a buffer zone between their area and this
community. She questioned how much green space was between the two communities. She
noted that those were the two things that they said that they needed to have and the developer
said could happen, which she wanted to see honored. She noted that Mr. Wagner stated that
development should go on even if Route 29 North was not improved. She agreed with the County
in that it should not happen. She stated that she commuted ten miles to the University and that
commute takes 45 minutes during rush hour. She felt that was quite enough. She felt that they
should not continue to build north unless they do improve Route 29.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the next speaker was Lucille Leake.
Lucille Leake, resident of Albemarle County on Pritchett Lane for fifty years, stated that she was
not opposed to growth or things that would help the County to grow because she knew they
needed that. The two major concerns were the outlets onto Pritchett Lane. She pointed out that at
the outlet at the end of Pritchett lane it was hard for the residents to get onto Proffit Road due to
the heavy traffic. The other outlet is a hidden access. At Northwoods Trailer Court there is a road
that goes all the way back to the North Pointe property. If those two people connect that road,
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 605
who says that they can't come onto Pritchett Lane without any authority from the County. That
really is a big concern because it would give two outlets. The two outlets are within a quarter of a
mile of each other, which really does not make a whole lot of sense.
Robert Tyburski, an adjacent property owner along Route 29, stated that his main concern
involved the parcels shown in white which were not a part of the development and how these
parcels would be accessed in the future. He stated that he would love to see some type of state
road or throughway for the parcels internally in there. He supported the development because
there was a big need for stores in this area. He favored getting some stores on the north side of
town to help lessen the traffic situation.
Mr. Finley asked if the developer has discussed this with the property owners?
Mr. Tyburski stated that he has gone to some of the meetings that they held for the adjacent
property owners. He stated that he did not know about the other property owners, but he had
tried to work his property in with them and they were not receptive with him being included with
them in the whole masterplan. Therefore, he was present to ensure that he had some sort of
access internally in there that the County wanted to see. He stated that he was willing to work
with the developers.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any other speakers who did not sign up. There being none,
he closed the public hearing to place the matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
He asked Mr. Wagner if he would like five minutes for rebuttal.
I am Chuck Rotgin, and I appreciate this last opportunity on behalf of Great Eastern to comment
on the plan we have presented for North Pointe. North Pointe is the culmination of many years of
collaborative planning. The Board of Supervisors recognized the future land use needs in this
area of the County by adding the properties that make up North Pointe to the Hollymead Growth
Area in 1993. At that time, the Board designated the properties as an important future residential
growth area and as a center for regional services. North Pointe was intended to serve not only
the immediate community, but all Hollymead Growth Area residents as well as those residents of
the nearby counties of Greene, Madison, Orange and Culpeper. We have created a community
that meets the County's Comprehensive Plan land use goals and the expressed needs of the
marketplace. In the twenty plus years since we first began to assimilate this property, and,
especially during the last three years of intensive planning, we have worked hard to address a
number of critical challenges that we believe will continue to affect the quality of life in our
community. At this critical juncture, we find ourselves at the vortex of what I would characterize
as an evolving ideological divide and a challenge as to how to achieve a goal we all desire. On
the one side is the laudatory concept and form of development that the Planning Commission
believes the Neighborhood model should take. And we agree with many of the concepts and
certainly with the objectives. On the other side and in our instance, thirty years of local
experience, current negotiations with large retailers and discussions with local builders convince
us that there needs to be more flexibility and, perhaps, some tweaking in the implementation of
the concept in order to ensure a successful community and meet the objectives of DISC and the
County such as a mix of uses, interconnectivity, pedestrian orientation, preservation of both open
spaces and of our rural areas, among others. While those of us in the business community have
been attempting to address the County's evolving land use policies and guidelines, the Planning
Commission has recently supported the adoption of significantly more stringent land use
regulations. This is occurring at a time when the area is experiencing significant loss of jobs and
remaining single family residential lots within the desirable and convenient Hollymead Growth
Area are near full build out. In addition, there is a lack of convenient, competitive shopping
alternatives within the County that is resulting in continued retail sales tax revenue leakage. While
many of us appreciate the sincere efforts on the part of the Commissioners and Planning Staff to
manage growth, we remain concerned that you have parted ways with many in the community
who have lived and worked and raised their children here. These people in the community have
contributed substantially to our current quality of life, continue to invest in the community's future,
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 606
and would like their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities to live and work in
this community as they have had. Let me comment on three trends which are of concern. First,
44mw County land use policies and regulations for the last 25 years have caused the cost of housing to
escalate to a point where there is virtually no affordable single family detached housing being
constructed in the growth areas, and even moderate priced lots in Hollymead and Forest Lakes
are nearing full build out. This is occurring just at the time that employees of the National Ground
Intelligence Center, Crutchfield, the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Airport, and North Fork Research
Park are looking for housing in this desirable and convenient area. North Pointe will offer housing,
shopping and service alternatives for the employees of these and other large companies in the
area and, by virtue of its interconnectivity to properties west of Route 29 and south of Proffit Road
will offer accessibility without the necessity of their having to access Route 29. 1 ask: if not North
Pointe, where does the County expect to accommodate this growth? Can the Commission
identify an area in the County where as many residents will have such a wide range of housing
alternatives and with the opportunity to walk or bike to work or to access shopping and services
as in North Pointe? Where else will single-family lots be created to take the pressure off the rural
areas? The rural areas of the County have some 18,000 platted lots available and additional lots
that can be created by right. De facto, stringent development policies are creating the exact
opposite effect of those intended by encouraging single family home construction on lots in our
rural areas. This development impacts the natural character and beauty of these rural areas that
are such an important County trust and is antithetical to the DISC vision. Second, nearly 5,000
jobs have been lost in the area over the last 2 plus years, and there actually was negative job
growth in Charlottesville and Albemarle County between the year 2000 and 2001. The same is
likely to be the case between 2001 and 2002, with prospects for 2003 clouded by the recent
announcement that Technicolor will be moving. In addition, I recently learned that a longtime
Albemarle County business owned and run by good friends with 60+ employees has given up
trying to find a place to relocate and grow its business in Albemarle County and is going to move
to Louisa County where the welcome mat was laid out for them. The good thing is that this
business will be staying in the area. We can become a homogeneous, affluent community
comprising retirees, transplants, and University employees who rely on services provided by lower
wage scale workers who travel here from other counties where they can afford to live.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he might want to think about getting close to his ending.
Mr. Rotgin stated that he was reading as fast as he could. Or, we can build a diverse community
that sustains a quality of life with quality housing, employment, and shopping opportunities. The
third issue relates to tax revenues and the effect increasing tax revenues can have on the
County's continual struggle to keep up with infrastructure needs. The staff report indicates that an
internal fiscal analysis prepared by the County shows that the net annual fiscal impact of North
Pointe would be approximately $600,000, an amount we believe to be extremely conservative.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Rotgin to summarize his discussion. He stated that in the interest of
fairness, they have asked everyone else to stick to their time limit and they need to do that with
him also.
Mr. Rotgin stated that this was the largest single rezoning this County has ever seen. He stated
that he had a page a one-half to read and he would respectfully request that he have the
opportunity to put that into the record.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that he hand the information to the secretary and they will see that the
entire remarks do get put into the minutes of the minutes.
Mr. Rotgin stated that he would conclude. An alternate run we requested with more realistic, but
still conservative values produced an $850,000 net annual fiscal impact. However, even the lower
amount of $600,000 would easily fund $8-9,000,000 in bonded infrastructure improvements,
which could help enable the DISC vision to become a reality. In 1993, with no National Ground
Intelligence Center, no North Fork Research Park and with Forest Lakes just getting into full
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 607
em
development, the Board of Supervisors saw a need for Regional Service for the North Pointe
property. With all of this existing development either complete or well underway and with
substantial growth accelerating 5 miles to the north in Greene County, staff is now suggesting that
North Pointe only contain Community Service scale commercial development. This scale cannot
support the inherent costs of developing the property or of the needed infrastructure
improvements, particularly those that we have proffered both on- and off -site and cannot
accommodate the retail and service needs of this growing area. Major national retailers have
conducted extensive market studies on this area and have concluded that North Pointe is the
place they want to be. We must respectfully disagree with staffs suggestions. In fact, over time,
this area of the County from Hollymead to Lewis and Clark Drive will be as important a revenue -
generating vehicle for the County as the area from Barracks Road to Seminole Square currently is
for the City. I salute the commitment and diligence of both staff and the Planning Commission in
the sometimes -difficult arena of land use regulation. However, in my judgment and increasingly in
the judgment of others within the business community, more restrictive policies currently being
advocated by the Commission do not serve County residents who need career ladder jobs,
affordable housing, and convenient, competitive shopping alternatives, all of which are integral to
North Pointe. In short, North Pointe is a job creator, a revenue producer, a rural area preserver,
and a traffic congestion ameliorator. I ask that you consider these issues as you proceed in your
deliberations, and, as Don Wagner asked earlier, we respectfully request that you affirm tonight
your recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, as set forth in Section 8.5.4. In addition to
representatives from Great Eastern, we have representatives in attendance from our architectural
firms and our traffic consultants, and we would welcome the opportunity to have dialogue and
answer questions.
Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing for discussion by the members of the Commission.
Ms. Hopper stated that Mr. Rotgin was correct that this was the largest rezoning that this County
has seen. The rezoning was 200 acres and larger than the Hollymead Towne Center and
Albemarle Place. Every other huge rezoning has had several worksessions and let the Planning
Commission digest the plan before it went to the Board of Supervisors. There has been no
worksession with this application. This is going straight to the public hearing, which made it very
difficult for the Commission to make meaningful comment at this stage.
Mr. Edgerton asked why the applicant was ignoring the process or refusing to participate in the
process?
Ms. Hopper stated that the statements that were read tonight were well written and eloquent.
However, there were many mischaracterizations and many inaccuracies in the statements. The
characterization of the nature of the rezoning was incorrect. Rezonings are anticipated to be
much more refined than the broad strokes that were suggested in the statement. The comments
from Ms. Echols that were lifted out of the report were lifted out in ways to construe something
that she did not mean. Ms. Hopper asked that it be on the record how many inaccuracies there
were in the applicant's statements.
Mr. Finley agreed with Ms. Hopper. Just reading the summary, it says that there are many
complexities and outstanding issues which are yet to be resolved. The report then proposes a
worksession for the Planning Commission for direction on how to resolve some of these issues.
He hoped that this comes back to a worksession. Personally, he did not think that he could make
an intelligent vote tonight. He stated that he hoped when this comes back that the developer and
Planning staff will have reached many mutual agreements on many of these complexities because
there is no way that they could sit here and resolve all of these issues. He felt that this should be
done prior to coming back to the Commission for a worksession.
Mr. Craddock concurred with the other Commissioners because he felt that they needed to work
out some of these issues.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 608
M
Mr. Rieley concurred with all of the comments that had been made. He stated that this was one of
the most disappointing proposals that he had seen come before them. He stated that it was wroth
with problems. He felt that the staff did a great job in articulating those in the staff report so that
there was no point in going through each one of them. It is really surprising that this got to us in
this configuration. He disagreed with Mr. Rotgin's that this proposal was a way to preserve the
Rural Areas. He stated that this has a long way to go and he agreed with his colleagues that this
needs to back up and have a worksession. As it stands, he certainly could not vote in favor of this
proposal.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he was in his fourth term on the Commission and he had not seen an
application less ready to come before them than this application tonight. He agreed with the
issues that staff has raised. He noted that this was very disappointing because it was the largest
thing of its kind that they have seen. He stated that he was unable to respond in detail to so many
blank spaces or question marks. With that said, this brings up the question of what they do from
here. He stated that there were a variety of possibilities. Based on the applicant's remarks, he
did not hear that they would consider a voluntary deferral so that a lot of these issues could be
worked on and brought back to us in the worksession format and the process taken through a
natural series of meetings, discussions and decisions. He stated that he did not see any evidence
that was the case. He asked the applicant to stop him at any time if he was wrong. That being
true they basically needed to act in some way. The Board would be reviewing this at their second
meeting in January.
Ms. Hopper stated that if the applicant did not request a deferral or a worksession, then she would
move for denial of ZMA-02-009, North Pointe PUD (formerly Towers Project) and SP-2002-72,
North Pointe.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the motion and second includes the recommendation that the Board not
accept the proffers as currently stated.
Ms. Hopper stated that was correct.
Mr. Craddock agreed.
Mr. Finley stated that he was in hopes that there would be a deferral.
Mr. Loewenstein asked the applicant if he wanted to consider requesting a deferral before they
took a vote.
Mr. Rotgin stated that they were willing to live with the motion for denial.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0) to recommend denial of the requests to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Board of Supervisors would hear the requests on January 19`h
Mr. Benish asked for specific comments on this. He stated that staff did outline the general areas
of concern. He asked if there is a general consensus that staff has captured all of the issues of
concern.
Ms. Hopper and Mr. Rieley stated yes that they were.
Mr. Benish asked if there was anything that staff could have missed. He asked if there were
additional concerns that were not addressed by staff in her 17 points.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 609
Ms. Hopper stated that the application was so vast that if they had worksessions and been able to
discuss this that there would have been many more points and refinements. She noted that there
are probably more issues, but they are hard to identify at this point.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that there were no other major issues that they could identify.
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:35 p.m.
The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m.
Regular Item:
SUB 2002-242 Stillhouse Ridge - Request for preliminary plat approval to create 11 lots as a
Rural Preservation Development on 71.793 acres. The 10-development lots range in size from 2
acres to 4.5 acres; the preservation tract is 40.9 acres. The property is zoned Rural Area (RA).
The property, described as Tax Map 85, Parcels 29A, 29B, 29C, 29D, 29E, 29F, 29G, 51 H, 51 J,
51 K is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of Rt. 635 (Miller School
Road) between Miller School Road and Rt. 689) Pounding Creek Road, approximately 300 feet
from the intersection of Rt. 635 and Route 692. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Rural Area 3. (Margaret Doherty)
Ms. Doherty presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) This is a Rural
Preservation Development. The proposal combines ten parcels that have fifty division rights when
combined and creates a forty acres preservation tract and ten development rights. What is
proposed as a preservation tract is probably best suited for agricultural use. The proposed
development lots could be used for forestry, but the trees in that area are serving as a screen
buffer. Therefore, it makes more sense to Staff for it to be in the configuration as shown. The
proposal only utilizes eleven of the fifty theoretical division rights that are available to the property
owner. The applicant has provided a conventional development example, which creates twenty-
nine lots with sixteen entrances. That is one possible conventional development scenario that is
located up on the board. The applicant has worked with the staff of the Engineering Department
and the Planning Department to meet the Design Standards of the Rural Preservation
Development section. Those Design Standards are practical by the Commission. Staff has found
in the staff report that they need all of those. Staff has also taken into considerations the
comments of the residents of the neighborhood that was expressed in letters which are all in your
report and the Neighborhood Meeting which she attended as well as the applicant. Staff tried to
incorporate those in the conditions of approval. Staff has one change to the proposed conditions
of approval. On page 7, condition #1 a) All structures and well and/or septic improvements shall
be located in those portions of the development lot, which are out side of the critical slopes. She
stated that if anyone had any questions that she would be happy to answer them. She stated that
the staff makes the following recommendations:
Recommended Action:
Staff finds the proposal in compliance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Stillhouse Ridge
Rural Preservation Development Preliminary Plat, SUB-02-242, with the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. Revise the plat to include the following notes:
i. "The house on Lot 1 shall be oriented towards Miller School Road (Route
635)";
ii. "With VDOT approval of an entrance permit, the driveway to Lot 1 shall
be from Miller School Road (Route 635). If VDOT does not grant an
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 610
entrance permit from Route 635, the driveway to Lot 1 shall be located
west of the stream crossing and any disturbance to the stream buffer
shall require a mitigation plan';
iii. "All structures and water and/or septic improvements shal► be located
within the building sites shown on the preliminary plat"; and
iv. "Any disturbance to that area designated on the plat as 'Preservation
Buffer', and/or any alteration to that portion of the property which is within
the Batesville Historic District shall be subject to review and approval of
the Planning Department. Approval shall not be granted for a change
that is determined to have a negative impact on the character and/or
significance of the historic district or that will affect the status of the State
and National Register Historic District".
b. Conduct a site -level groundwater assessment based on investigation by a
professional geologist or hydrogeologist. The results of the assessment shall
have no effect on the rights of the applicant to divide the property;
C. Health Department approval of soils evaluations for suitability for well and septic;
and
d. All other agency approvals.
2. The following items must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before
the final plat can be recommended for approval:
a. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations;
b. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management;
C. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must
include water quality, and detention routings for the 2yr and 10yr storms;
d. A mitigation plan for any impacts to the stream buffer;
e. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee;
and
f. Road plans, pavement design sheets, and drainage computations.
Mr. Rieley stated that the staff report indicated that the site distance at the intersection of
Pounding Creek Road and the Miller School Road was problematic and gave that as a reason for
pushing for an entrance off of Pounding Creek Road. He asked if that site distance was
measured by anybody.
Ms. Doherty stated that they might have had Charles Baber go out there, but she was not certain
of that. When looking at access from Pounding Creek Road, there are site improvements that
would have to be done just for that private road to serve the two lots.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that he looked at the site himself, and it did not appear to be problematic.
Mr. Craddock asked if the preservation tract was preserved forever and can never be subdivided.
Ms. Doherty stated that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner stated that if a perpetual easement had been put on that tract, then typically only
one dwelling would be allowed.
Mr. Finley questioned item lb on page 7. The condition states to conduct a site level ground
water assessment based on an investigation by a hydrogeologist. He asked if this was going to
be a standard condition for cluster developments.
Ms. Doherty stated that there was no proposal that she knew of, but referred the question to David
Hirschman since he was present to answer ground water questions. She noted that this was a
condition that Mr. Hirschman created for this development.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 611
Mr. Finley asked why the staff report did not mention anything about the results.
Ms. Doherty stated that they did not have an ordinance regulating ground water. The effect of this
condition may be that the applicant will propose a different preliminary plat given the ground water
situation. This does not prevent or somehow inhibit the division with the possibility of a drought.
This is something that the applicant volunteered.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that Mr. Hirschman come forward to provide a little more information.
David Hirschman stated that the proposed program is in the early stages of actually becoming a
regulatory program and would apply to all developments in the Rural Areas that use wells. A
hydrological assessment would be done prior to development. He noted that the program would
be coming back to the Commission for consideration, but that it would depend upon funding that
was another issue. He stated that this particular condition is that a hydrogeologist assessment be
done based on a professional investigation of the site. That can describe a wide range of
investigations from something very simple from $1,000 on up to very sophisticated type of test.
What would probably be relevant would be for staff to sit down with the applicant's consultant on
this and come up with a scope of work that is appropriate for the site. Most likely it would involve
a geological mapping exercise and possibly some limited geophysics to look under the ground to
see where the fracture patterns are.
Mr. Finley stated that he had a hard time following what the point of that is after the subdivision
has been done and after the lot lines have been drawn. He asked if that was something that
would be more useful before the final plat was done.
Mr. Hirschman stated that it would be more helpful before the final plat was done in case changes
needed to be made to the lot lines.
Mr. Finley asked if he envisioned this being a provision for family divisions.
Mr. Hirschman stated that the way that the proposal was written now was for all divisions. He
noted that it was a lot more complicated because it depends on the number of lots. It is a simple
process for up to three or four lots and then it gets more complicated as the number increases.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that staff points out in the staff report that the County does not have
an ordinance that relates ground water supply to the approval of subdivisions. He noted that they
need to keep that in mind, but that they did not have the legal capacity to address that issue at
this time.
Mr. Rieley stated that there was no assurance of water availability when you buy a piece of
property. He asked Mr. Kamptner if there was anything that would prevent the Commission from
making a condition on a rural preservation tract that there be a note on all plats indicating that. In
addition, he suggested adding a further note showing the repository for the water studies that is
being suggested by the condition to be done here. He questioned what they were doing if they
generate all of this information with no obligation on anybody's part to make it available.
Mr. Kamptner stated that notes how that goes on plats when the subdivision is not served by a
public water supply. He pointed out that he needed to do some research on this. He stated that
his recollection was that some real estate attorneys have said that notes like that create a cloud
on title and they raised some other concerns. He pointed out that he would look into this issue.
Mr. Rieley asked that this issue be explored.
Mr. Hirschman stated that what he understood from area realtors was that because of the drought
and failing wells that everybody was more aware of the water situation. It has become fairly
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 612
routine that the lending institutions and buyers are making that a condition of the contract. He
noted that in some ways it is happening outside of the County's control, but staff could look at re -
enforcing that.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the wells in this area are currently stressed by the drought, if putting in 11 or
12 new wells would come out of the same water table.
Mr. Hirschman stated that would have to be the product of a site -specific investigation. The
interconnections between the two systems are hard to determine. He pointed out that any new
well was more new water coming out of the ground and more demand and there certainly was the
possibility of interference.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any more questions for staff. There being none, he opened
the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak concerning the application.
Jesse Easton, owner of the subject property, stated that he was a lifetime resident of Batesville.
When he found out that this property was going to become available on the open market, he
recognized what the potential development rights were and that it would be a hot item for some
developer to pick up. His intention was to do something very similar to what they have proposed
here. They wished to preserve a portion of the land and develop a smaller portion of the land to
offset costs. He met with Kirk Hughes to explore several options. They decided to pursue this
preservation process because it seems to satisfy their needs financially as well as the needs of
his family and other residents of Batesville. He felt that the proposal was the least oppressive of
any development that could have been done here. The input from the meetings with the Planning
staff and the public has been very helpful. He pointed out that they intend to donate the land used
for Batesville Day to either the Ruritans or the Parks and Recreation Department. By doing this
type of development, it would enable them to do that type of a division.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, resident of Albemarle County, stated that she would like to read a portion of a
*4W letter she wrote to another organization about long time rural land owners using their land in
combining agricultural uses and development. She noted that she had a thought on the idea of
not being a native. When she moved here from southern California in 1987, she had the same
feeling as she watched the unplanned, unthought about growth happen as she had felt about the
growth in California. She felt sorry for the Virginia natives who were seeing their beautiful hills and
valleys filled and destroyed. She felt very sorry for them since she had seen it happen before. As
she saw it happen she was afraid that they really did not understand. They were so used to all of
this beauty that they did not realize how fast that it could disappear, but she did. She felt that
some of us have come from other areas where we have seen alarming development that has not
been done particularly well and want to help to preserve this area along with the natives. Maybe
sometimes we are not too sensitive to the native's feelings as if they have not been doing a good
job or they don't care. Maybe it is that they have not had to pay so much attention to community
activity before. Having done a lot of research lately into past history of this area over the last thirty
years, she could tell them that the elected officials for the most part have not done too well in the
stewardship department. It is just now that it is becoming more apparent. The original owners of
these farms have bought the land with the welfare of their children and grandchildren in mind. So
she must also acknowledge the fact that they want to leave their children some ability to get
ahead using the land.
Joshua Goldschmidt stated that he owned parcel 28 with his partner. He noted that they have
attached in your packet a proposal that if this was able to go through that it would give us access
for one home to the road going to this division. They have been working with the County,
particularly Bill Fritz, for over two years. It is their intention for that purchase to preserve the field
that is now used for Batesville Day. They propose to either donate the field to the Ruritans or to
the Parks and Recreation Department. After exploring the option, Bill Fritz advised them that it
was not possible because their tract would have been less than two acres in the division because
of the way that they would have had to access their property. By doing this, it would give them the
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 613
ability to have that division. He noted that he grew up in Batesville and preserving Batesville Day
was something that was very important to them. He asked that the Planning Commission support
*Awl their proposal.
Marjorie Siegel, member of the Friends of Batesville, asked the members of the group to stand to
be recognized. These folks are all concerned about preserving a very unique community. She
noted that Batesville is one of three historic districts on the Historic Register. Several of the
members will provide suggestions that would enhance this development further. She presented
petitions that were signed by more than 85 of their residents to be placed in the record.
Bill Guerrant, resident of Batesville for thirteen years, stated that the limited water resources are a
critical concern of his family. He pointed out that the research and data indicate that the available
underground water in our Batesville area is particularly scarce. Those of us that depend upon our
wells have been acutely aware of this tenuous supply for the last several months. The published
assessment provides conclusive evidence to confirm their concern. He stated that he was
speaking to the Planning Commission tonight because his concerns about the finite water supply
are additionally being raised by the proposed Stillhouse Ridge Development on Miller School
Road in Batesville. He asked that their water supply not be jeopardized by events that can be
controlled such as wreckless development. The evidence suggests that Stillhouse Ridge
Development could destroy the existing supply of underground water for those of us in the area
and create a disastrous situation for which the developer would have no solutions. He noted that
there will be water shortages in the future, but they should not be victimized and then made to
suffer additionally because of short -sited decisions by those in decision -making positions. He
asked that the Planning Commission protect our water supply.
John Pollock, President of Batesville Historical Society, stated the society was formed about five
years ago and currently had 50 members. The group was formed to have Batesville placed on
the National Register of Historic Places because it is a unique historic area. Batesville is one of
the best intact examples of a current 1920-century crossroads community, which is basically a
small community that has been founded on commerce. The State recognized this and gave them
the designation, as did the National Register. He noted that the group wants to express some
concerns they have with the proposed development on their historic district. He noted that the
group feels that they have to act as stewards of this district to protect it. The northwestern
boundary of the subdivision is along our historic district. As proposed, they feel that the proposal
would have a detrimental impact on the historic district. They recommended that a buffer be
established along that area. Based on their research on places over the entire United States, they
are recommending a 250-foot wooded buffer. He noted that this is in excess of staffs 30-foot
buffer recommendation, which they feel is inadequate.
Emily Greer stated that as a member of the Batesville community, she was concerned with the
impact that this subdivision would have on Route 635, Miller School Road. She stated that this
beautiful section of rural road was lined with magnificent Oak trees that provides an appropriate
and pleasing boundary for the historic district and masks any development that might take place
on the referenced land. She noted that if the subdivision was allowed to build an access road off
of Route 635 that VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) would require a 100-foot right
turn lane to provide the 250-foot site distance. That would require that most of these beautiful
Oak trees would be cut. If allowed, this would destroy the visual and rural character of the road.
She felt that would be detrimental to their community. She asked that the Commission consider a
different access.
Susan Guerrant, resident of Batesville for 13 years, concurred with the concerns about the water
and preservation of the historic district voiced by the previous speakers. She asked that the
Commission focus on the traffic concerns. The proposed main access off of Route 635 for this
subdivision is very problematic. The entrance is situated on a section of road with steep incline
surmounted by a curve at the top of Stillhouse Ridge Road. VDOT has recognized this problem
*W and is recommending a 100-foot right turn lane for the entrance. Constructing the turn lane will
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 614
necessitate considerable filling of the critical slope along the southeast edge of the road. This turn
lane will also necessitate the substantial clearing of trees and vegetation in order to satisfy
``�bfte VDOT's requirement for the 250-foot site distance. The proposed clearing and cutting is at
variance with paragraph F in your memo to Robert Cummings dated November 6, 2002 that calls
for maintaining the buffer to preserve the character of the Batesville Historical District. She noted
that the proposed entrance would increase the risk of accidents especially in inclement weather.
She encouraged the Planning Commission to take this task very seriously as they consider what
is best for Batesville.
Sally Tucker, resident of Batesville since 1991, stated that she lives on Pounding Creek Road.
She pointed out the unique character of Batesville and how important Batesville Day was.
Ross Weesner, resident of 6536 Plank Road in Batesville, stated that he opposed the
development as it was designed. He pointed out that he moved to this area so that he could raise
his family in the rural areas away from mass development.
John Woodworth, resident of Batesville, stated that he was present not as a proponent for
development, but a proponent of thinking carefully about how we do it. The Albemarle County
Planning Department sponsored a meeting at Red Hill School last month. It was held to gain input
from the public on the future of Rural Areas in our County. Participants in the meeting were given
a two page sheet entitled Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas endorsed by the Planning
Commission. Three principles were listed in this sheet that are in particular relevant to your
deliberations this evening. These principles include the following: Item le) To protect the quality
and supply of service and groundwater resources, Item 1h) To protect the areas historic
resources, and Item 8) Provide support for long standing rural crossroads communities and
villages without creating defacto growth areas. He noted that the Stillhouse Ridge Development
as proposed raises serious questions when viewed against these principles. He urged the
Commission and the developer to consider alternative configurations that would better serve the
Planning Department's principles that the Commission has agreed on.
Charles Gay, resident of 6568 Plank Road in Batesville, stated that the proposed development
would be located in back of his property. He voiced concern with the development since the
developer chose the most environmentally sensitive part of the 70 acres for his development.
One of the things that they were most disturbed about is the entrance itself and the impact that it
would have on the historic district and the traffic issues. He noted that water was an issue in and
of itself. He stated that possibly modifying the entrance would go a long way towards satisfying a
lot of their concerns. He suggested that if the entrance were moved to Pounding Creek Road,
then they could provide that buffer zone that the Historical Society is asking for. In addition, it
would lessen the traffic problems on that incline and the impact on Route 635. He asked that the
Planning Department consider modifications that would make this subdivision in the Rural Areas
more compatible with the historic district and the Rural Areas.
Timothy Smith, long time resident of Batesville, hoped that Mr. Haden would take into
consideration the water issues and traffic concerns that have been raised. He asked that the
developer take the time to make sure that they were not creating future problems.
Bob Johnson stated that he lived on Burgess Creek Road that was less than a mile from the
proposed development. He noted that any development of this kind would certainly be detrimental
to the Batesville community. He encouraged the Board to do anything that they could to minimize
the impact since they cannot stop the development. He noted that if the County decided to pave
Pounding Creek Road that he felt that it would create a lot of problems. He discouraged any
changes that would lead to further subdivisions in the rural area.
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that he had talked with many of these
citizens on the telephone. He stated that he was often told that people in the Rural Areas don't
come out to public meetings. Tonight shows that the County's Rural Area citizens are involved
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 615
and well informed participants in the public process. He pointed out that the issues raised tonight
were a case study of the issues that they are looking at as they review the Rural Areas section of
the Comprehensive Plan. He hoped as that review continues that the County will take what has
been said tonight into that discussion. He would trust that these citizens would also remain
involved to remind the County of what they have said. This is just one proposal and he would
make a comment about the Rural Area that he thought they needed to talk about. People have
talked about the water issue and have articulated that well. The transportation issues have also
been discussed. Right now there are 1,600 homes in the Rural Area. VDOT would say that is
160,000 vehicle trips per day. The build out potential is for way over 60,000. That would be about
600,000 vehicle trips per day. He noted that it would be interesting to step back and see how
many subdivisions across the street and down the road, etc. and what would be the cumulative
impact of the development in this area. There is a real focus on these issues that the people in
the Rural Area are talking about. Finally, he looked forward to Mr. Hirschman's report and
recommendations from the Groundwater Committee. There are some very good well testing
ordinances in the Commonwealth and they look forward to having one in Albemarle County very
soon.
Kirk Hughes, representative for the applicant as the surveyor, stated that this project was brought
to him in 1991. He talked with Mr. Haden about how the ordinance would deal with this property.
He pointed out that there were currently ten parcels. At this time a building permit could be
obtained for any one of those parcels and build and drill a well today. The properties could be
divided. Through this planning process, the applicant decided that he did not want to be a part of
that since he wanted to preserve as much of it as he could. He noted that this eleven -parcel
development came out of it. The County has a part of the ordinance that deals with the rural
preservation. There has been talk about the site distance on the entrance on Miller School Road.
There is more than 250 foot of site distance and it was put in there to have the best place or the
safest place for that entrance to be. He pointed out that he had met with the Highway Department
several times with different scenarios. As a surveyor he was often asked where should I put the
well. He pointed out that he had never given anybody advice on where to place their well. The
study that he read and was prepared for the County, he felt dealt more with the potential of putting
in a public system where you have a central well. In this case, they would all be individual wells.
It is not quite fair to look at the standards that they have in that study and place it site specific on
the two acres. He was not sure if you would come up with same conclusion.
Mr. Rieley asked if he could clarify the taper lane.
Mr. Hughes stated that it was a 100-foot turn and taper lane. He pointed out that the Highway
Department recommended that they start 100 feet back and taper it down to where you have a full
11-foot lane as you turn into it. He pointed out that would minimize the amount of clearing and
grading on that shoulder which would save some of those trees.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the Commission had heard a lot of very sincere citizen input tonight, of
which he really appreciated. If development has to occur in the Rural Area, he was in favor of the
Rural Preservation Development as you have shown. Regarding Mr. Gay's comments about the
subdivision being placed on the most environmentally sensitive area, he asked if the applicant had
considered coming in from the other side. He pointed out that if the subdivision could be flipped,
that it would allow for a lot of sensitivity to the Historic District that seemed to be driving a lot of the
concern tonight.
Mr. Hughes asked if he was talking about coming off of Pounding Creek Road.
Mr. Edgerton stated that was correct.
Mr. Hughes stated that they met with the Highway Department and looked at an entrance, but the
Highway Department did not want that entrance from that side for the subdivision. He noted that
he met with Jim Kesterson twice on this and he would not approve the entrance off of Pounding
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 616
Creek Road. There is a site distance problem. By moving the entrance all the way down would
solve the problem for the driveway entrance, but it would be a problem for the road. He pointed
1%WW out that the thread of the Rural Preservation Tract is not to put the development on the prime
piece. He felt that was what this plat does. The prime piece of this is on the top of this and is
what that is being preserved.
Mr. Finley asked what was the minimum road frontage on each lot.
Mr. Hughes stated that it would be 250 feet.
Mr. Benish stated that an internal road requires 150 feet and a public road requires 250 feet.
Marla Muntner, resident of Batesville, stated that as she listened to each person talk that she felt
that she had a solution to the issues. The issues she heard were traffic and safety, protecting
water for existing residents who have had wells run dry within the past year, and preserving the
historical nature of Batesville. She suggested that instead of Mr. Haden having ten houses,
maybe he could be persuaded to consider a less dense development of five or six lots on the
same area. That would address the water and traffic issues and create a buffer for preserving the
nature of the historic area while it would allow him to still get the economics benefits that he needs
to get out of his piece of land.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that since there was no further public comment, he would close the public
hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley stated that it would be useful to discuss the perimeters within which they are obliged to
make their decision. The Commission is obliged by the Ordinance to evaluate a Rural
Preservation Plan not relative to what we would like to ideally see, but relative to by right
development. That is written in the Ordinance and is their requirement. That is their benchmark to
measure these things by. He finds this one extremely difficult because there were a lot of very
valid concerns that have been raised tonight. The Commission has absolutely no authority to
address many of these concerns. For example, the three items listed by the Friends of Batesville
were the water, traffic and historic preservation. On the water, the Commission does not have the
legal authority to say we think that 10 is too many lots when in fact there are 28 demonstrated
development rights on this property. The Commission does not have the authority to reduce the
number of lots for that reason. On the issue of traffic, it is very hard to argue that the traffic will be
less of a problem if there are 28 by -right lots rather than 10 rural preservation lots. Once again,
that is the standard that they are obliged to use when they evaluate this. On the third one, historic
preservation, he has a different view because he agreed with the speaker who said that the
entrance poses a substantial diminution of the quality of the historic district. That road as it leaves
Batesville and goes up to the top of the hill has a quality that is wonderful. The road itself is
depressed and the reason that the trees are higher than the road is that the road has come down
over many years. That roadside and the steep woods on the side of it seems to be a substantial
piece of the character of that area and in fact he agreed with the speakers who say that the
entrance to that point would be a serious change. For instance, the taper is 100 feet. These are
trees are really big and arch over the road and will be there for a long time if not taken down. The
taper itself and the road would probably take out 150 feet of them. In addition to that, the road
itself is only 20 feet wide, but with the fill section in that valley it would take out more than 100 feet
of that wooded valley that runs across and ties into the ravine. He felt that there was a better way
to approach this. He agreed with Mr. Edgerton that Rural Preservation Development is far
preferable than by -right development for this property. He noted that he was not convinced that
an entrance off of Pounding Creek Road wouldn't be a lot better. That would allow a substantial
buffer. He agreed with the speaker who said that the buffer should be more like 250 feet instead
of 30 feet. The preservation buffer shown on plat is more than 250 feet. The only problem is that
this entrance road interrupts it. He stated that he would love to see this work. The way that he
saw it working was to bring the entrance off of Pounding Creek Road. He pointed out that there
are site distance issues that can sometimes be resolved. There is nothing on Pounding Creek
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 617
Road that cannot be resolved from a site distance perspective, but it might require a contribution
for improvements of Pounding Creek Road easement. The entrance along Miller School Road
,%we and the impact that it will have on the Historic District is so extreme that he did not think they
should approve it in this configuration. He felt that they should work hard with the applicant to
adjust the plan and to give them time without another application fee or that kind of thing to make
this plan work so that it will work for everybody.
Mr. Thomas echoed everything that Mr. Rieley said about Miller School Road. He felt that the
entrance did need to be moved to protect that area.
Mr. Edgerton definitely concurred since he would love to see a reconfiguration of the Rural
Preservation development on this property getting away form the Historic District and trying to
minimize the environmental impact. If there is enough frontage, he felt that Mr. Kesterson has to
allow access onto Pounding Creek Road. He encouraged the Commission to work with the
applicant on this. He stated that he would have to vote against this the way that it is configured.
Mr. Craddock stated that he visited the site and observed that this would be a good solution to
bring the entrance off of Pounding Creek Road. He stated that the traffic seemed to be pretty
substantial and rapid through that area.
Mr. Rieley asked if the old school house was a contributing structure.
Ms. Doherty stated that it was.
Mr. Rieley stated that being the case that he would like to see a larger buffer along the north side
of the property where it is going to the old school house.
Mr. Finley stated that Ms. Doherty did a good job in that Section 10.3.3.2 was very clear. She
went right down the list and the criterion was met. He asked how requiring the developer to do the
114� buffering could do much and changing because of the historic district. He asked what was
required for a buffer.
on
Mr. Rieley stated that there was a 250-foot buffer as shown, but the northern boundary of that
buffer was the road. The fact is that except for the road crossing it, this area was not going to be
built on anyway. There is only one lot up on the corner that actually is adjacent to several existing
houses along there. He felt that would be fine with the continuation of the existing pattern.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the entrance should be moved and the buffer maintained at all costs.
He felt that the Historic District should be preserved. He supported working with the applicant to
alleviate some of the concerns of the citizens. He felt that this plan was better than a by right
development. He noted that there were still some issues that need to be addressed to make sure
that the qualities of Batesville do not go away with the development of this piece of land. He
asked that staff check the clock for the time limitations and that they ask Mr. Haden to come back
up to discuss this.
Mr. Rieley stated that he wold love to have a pedestrian path down to Batesville.
Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to tell us what is happening with the clock, and if Mr. Haden will come
back up.
Mr. Benish stated that Ms. Doherty was checking the dates. He pointed out that staff did pursue
access from Pounding Creek Road, but there was some concern by the applicant that VDOT
would not approve the entrance.
Ms. Doherty stated that it was October 14"
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 618
Mr. Kamptner asked when did staff receive the State comment.
Ms. Doherty stated that it dated on November 4".
Mr. Kamptner stated that they were probably right up against the deadline.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was best to have the applicant endorse the deferral.
Mr. Haden stated that there were several things about the entrance and it may be that Mr. Hughes
would be better versed to explaining them to you. He stated that it was not quite as simple as put
out by the members of the committee. If they did redesign the development they would like to see
that become an administrative approval instead of having to come back before this Board. He
would make that request. He stated that he has plenty of thoughts and feelings about this. He
noted that he has invested a lot of time, money and effort in finding what he felt was the best
proposal to meet not only his own needs but to serve the community as well. Clearly there is
some impact on Miller School Road and the Historic District. He stated that he did not feel that
the infrastructure on Pounding Creek Road is suitable to handle the full load of that development
the way that Miller School Road is.
Mr. Rieley stated that the normal mechanism that they would go into to try to resolve these things
is for you to request a deferral to continue to work on this to investigate these issues, and then it
would come back to us. As you suggested, the Commission could be very specific on what they
would like to see and make a suggestion that it be approved administratively if all of those things
are met. He felt that there was enough things up in the air that would be in everybody's best
interest to take another look at it and bring it back. He stated that they would not need to have
another public hearing.
Mr. Haden requested a deferral for an unspecified time in order to work out the concerns and
details on the possibility of moving the road. He pointed out that it was his understanding that the
boundary of the district runs along the center of Miller School Road. He stated that they could cut
down those trees if they so chose to by -right. He noted that the by -right development of the
developer should be recognized.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the Planning Commission has the ability to approve a preliminary plat
with conditions. The conditions would need to be very specific so that the Commission was
comfortable that staff can apply those conditions and determine whether or not the final plat meets
the conditions. Then, the agent could approve the plat.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was possible to bring this back on the consent agenda if the applicants
responded to the basic issues.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission had been very clear about what they would like to see
happen. He stated that the issues for the redesign were as follows:
♦ The entrance of the subdivision needs to come off of Pounding Creek Road. The applicant
should work with the Highway Department to work out the technical issues for adequate site
distance and to make it work.
♦ The house on Lot 1 shall be oriented towards Miller School Road (Route 635) and have its
own separate entrance off of Miller School Road.
♦ The applicant should figure out a way to provide a sufficient "Preservation Buffer" along Miller
School Road.
Mr. Rieley made a motion to accept the applicant's request for deferral to an unspecified date to
address these issues and that the request be brought back on the consent agenda.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
WW
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 619
Ms. Doherty asked for a clarification. The Commission stated that there could be a building site
on lot 1 with the driveway off of Miller School Road, but you were also saying that there should be
a 250 foot Preservation Buffer from Miller School Road.
Mr. Rieley stated that the limits of that would be for where that building site is shown. He stated
that the building site would be within that 250 foot Preservation Buffer.
The motion carried unanimously (7:0).
Mr. Loewenstein stated that SUB-2002-242, Stillhouse Ridge was deferred to an unspecified date
and will return on the consent agenda.
New Business:
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Old Business:
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Crozet Masterplan Presentation that was given in a joint
worksession between the Commission and the Board of Supervisors was very informative. The
presentation with more detail will be going on in a series of storefront sessions that started
yesterday and will run for the remainder of the week from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He suggested
that anyone interested should attend.
NOTE: THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NO ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 24, 2002 OR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2002 AND JANUARY 7, 2003. THE
NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING IS TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2003
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to the next meeting to be held on
January 14th.
V. Wayne glimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 17, 2002 620