HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 13 2004 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
January 13, 2004
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, January
13, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Bill Edgerton, Calvin
Morris, Jo Higgins and Pete Craddock.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David
Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Michael Barnes,
Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. He pointed out
that the Commission would handle all of the items through the public hearing for
SP-03-78, Daniel Tribastone here in room # 241 and then move next door to room # 235 for the two work
sessions.
Election of Officers: Chairman and Vice -Chairman:
Mr. Cilimberg opened up for nominations for the election of Chairman of the Planning Commission for the
upcoming year.
Mr. Rieley nominated Mr. Thomas to be Chairman of the Planning Commission for the upcoming year.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the nomination.
The motion was approved (6:0).
Mr. Cilimberg turned the meeting over to Mr. Thomas, the new Chairman.
Mr. Thomas asked for nominations for Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission for the upcoming year.
Mr. Edgerton nominated Mr. Craddock to be Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission for the
upcoming year.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the Secretary was already designated and that the Commission did
not need to take any action.
Set meeting Time, Day, and Location for 2004:
sAry
Mr. Morris moved to keep the Planning Commission's meeting time the same on toe -fires: -Tuesday of the
month at 6:00 p.m., in meeting room #241, County Office Building.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Adoption of Rules of Procedure:
Mr. Edgerton made a motion to accept the Rules of Procedure for the Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004
Mr. Kamptner stated that before the motion was made and seconded, there were two
changes that need to be made as a result of the reorganization. He noted that Sections 1 c and
1 d need to be amended to refer to the Director of Planning rather than the Director of Planning
and Community Development. He pointed out that all County ordinances now reflect the
new organization.
Mr. Edgerton amended his motion for approval to include the two changes to the Rules of Procedure as
suggested by Mr. Kamptner.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Rieley suggested that they ask Mr. Kamptner to bring to the Commission a discussion of the short
board rules and procedure, which was a result of a conversation that he had with Mr. Davis. He stated
that there were some distinctions and that in some cases there might be an advantage of doing that. He
stated that this was something that the Commission could take a look at.
Mr. Thomas asked if all the Commissioners were in agreement to the suggestion.
It was the consensus of the Commission to ask Mr. Kamptner to bring the information suggested by Mr.
Rieley to the Commission for discussion.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Thomas invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being
none, he stated that the meeting would move on to the review of the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — January 6, 2004
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken on January 6th by the Board of Supervisors.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — November 4, 2003.
Mr. Thomas asked if any Commissioner would like to pull any of the minutes from the consent agenda.
There being none, he asked for a motion.
Mr. Rieley asked that they be granted a one -week reprieve on the minutes sent for corrections due to the
massive volume and the fact that he did not get a chance to make it all the way through those. He noted
that there were a lot of substantive things that they discussed.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Rieley and asked if the other Commissioners agreed.
The general consensus of the Commission was that they be allowed a one -week reprieve on the minutes
sent for corrections.
Mr. Morris moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004
Deferred Items:
SP-2003-72 Linda Vest — Alltel (Sign #87) - Request for special use permit to allow the construction of a
personal wireless facility with a monopole, approximately 85 feet in total height and 10 feet above the
height of the tallest tree within 25 feet. The proposed facility includes flush -mounted panel antennas and
ground equipment. This application is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for microwave and radio wave transmission and relay towers in the Rural Areas.
The property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 43C, contains 2.16 acres, and is zoned RA Rural Areas.
The proposal is located on Rt. 718 (Murrays Lane), approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of
Murrays Lane and Route 29, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. (Stephen Waller) DEFERRED FROM THE
DECEMBER 2, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO
JANUARY 20, 2004.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant was requesting deferral of SP-2003-72, Linda Vest, to January
20tn.
Mr. Thomas opened the hearing and asked if there was any public comment. There being none, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Edgerton moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of SP-2003-72, Linda Vest — Alltel, to
January 20, 2004.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Rieley stated the item was deferred and that the Commission would hear SP-2003-72 on January
20tn.
SDP 02-083 Blue Ridge Shopping Center Major Site Plan Amendment - Request for approval of an
amendment to the approved final site plan SDP 96-133 by relocating the site's entrance to align with
Radford Lane, and increasing from 49,869 to 54,033 square feet of total building area. (Stephen Waller)
DEFERRED FROM THE DECEMBER 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APPLICANT
REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 20, 2004.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant was requesting deferral of SDP-02-083, Blue Ridge Shopping
Center Major Site Plan Amendment, to January 20tn
Mr. Thomas opened the hearing and asked if there was any public comment. There being none, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of SUB-02-083, Blue Ridge Shopping
Center Major Site Plan Amendment, to January 20, 2004.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Thomas stated that the item was deferred and that the Commission would hear SUB-02-083, Blue
Ridge Shopping Center Major Site Plan Amendment on January 20th.
Public Hearing Items:
SP-03-78 Daniel Tribastone (Sign #54) - Request for special use permit to allow a math and reading
center in accordance with Section 20.4.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Schools of Special
Instruction. The property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Block 3, Parcel 205C, contains 1.836 acres, and is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004
zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). The proposal is located on Rt. 1427 (Hillsdale Drive),
approximately 100 feet southeast of the Hillsdale Drive/ Branchlands Boulevard intersection, in the Rio
Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density in
Neighborhood 2. (Michael Barnes)
Mr. Barnes summarized the staff report. The applicant's proposal is for a special use permit to allow a
private school, the Kumon Center, which is a math and reading tutoring center for up to 100 students.
The proposed school would be located within an existing condominium building, the existing Branchlands
Professional Center building, on Incarnation Drive. The applicant is Daniel Tribastone. The office building
is owned in a condominium regime. The proposed school would consist of 1 or 2 employees and with
hours of operation generally from 4 to 8 p.m. The bulk of the students will use the facility after normal
business hours, i.e. 5 p.m. This proposal is similar to the one referred to by Mr. Cilimberg that was
approved at the last Board of Supervisors meeting for the same building for a driving school, but this one
is for a reading school. The major issue of both of these special use permit applications has been the
parking and the shared parking regime on the site. These issues have been resolved satisfactorily to
Zoning and staff recommends approval with the following two standard conditions for schools:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be 100 students.
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM provided that occasional
school -related events may occur outside of these hours.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for Mr. Barnes. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else would like to address the Commission. There being
none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and
possible action.
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP-2003-78, Daniel Tribastone, subject to the conditions recommended
in the staff report as follows:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be 100 students.
1�ft,,. 2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. provided that occasional
school -related events may occur outside of these hours.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Thomas stated that SP-2003-78 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval and would be heard on February 11th. He pointed out that was all of the public hearing items
and that now the meeting would adjourn to room # 235 for the work sessions.
The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. to the two work sessions in Room # 235.
The meeting reconvened at 6:25 p.m. in meeting room # 235.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission moved to Room #235 to hold the next two work sessions.
Members attending were William Rieley; Bill Edgerton; Rodney Thomas, Chairman; Calvin Morris; Jo
Higgins and Pete Craddock, Vice -Chairman.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Susan Thomas,
Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Lee Catlin, Facilitator; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning & Community Development; Michael Barnes, Senior Planner; Mark Graham, Director of
Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Mr. Thomas called the regular meeting back to order at 6:25 p.m. He stated that the meeting would begin
with the work session on the CPA-2003-07, Crozet Master Plan Facilitated Session.
CPA 2003-07 Crozet Master Plan - The Planning Commission will continue review of the Master
Plan prepared by the County's technical consultants, for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 4
Land Use Plan as an amendment to the Community of Crozet Profile. (Susan Thomas)
Lee Catlin, facilitator, stated that the Commission had previously worked through Section E, which was
now Section G, entitled Forms, Maps and Site Development Guidelines. She noted that at the last work
session that they had finished up with Places. She pointed out that they had just a small amount of text
to get through before getting to the maps.
Ms. Thomas stated that on the marked up copy that they would begin with page 18.
Ms. Catlin stated that they had been working their way through this material in a facilitated process for
quite some time and wanted to continue in the same way. She pointed out that they wanted to get
everybody caught up and on the same speed in thinking about the Crozet Master Plan. She turned the
meeting over to Susan Thomas to make some introductory remarks before they start working through the
language.
Ms. Thomas stated that they just have a little bit more of the narrative portion to go through, which was
about 4 pages. Then, they would be in the Design Guidelines, which would be the 4 maps and a
multitude of matrixes. When they finish with the narrative portion she would give a few brief remarks from
staff's point of view just to give the Commission something to think about and to open the discussion.
Tonight would be their opportunity to have a discussion about the colors on the Place Type Map, which
was really the Land Use Map component of the Crozet Master Plan. Very related to the land use issues
are things like road alignments and placement of the facilities. She pointed out that they have an
opportunity for a good general discussion and that the map to the far left was probably the map that they
would spend the most time on. Staff has some suggestions on how to incorporate the matrixes. At this
point they would go back and start working through the narrative section.
Ms. Catlin stated that they would start working through the last section of text in the same manner as
before. She stated that they would start with the section on the Deviations from the Neighborhood Model
Site Development Guidelines. She asked if anybody had any comments or questions.
Mr. Thomas asked if anyone had any questions from the previous meeting that they would like to follow
up on.
Ms. Higgins asked what were the deletions and insertions that were in the document already
Ms. Catlin stated that showed the changes from the consultant's report that staff has made to recommend
for Comp Plan language. The changes reflect something changed from the consultant's report, which
was the very thick item that they have before them. She stated that not hearing anything that she would
move on to the next page entitled The Built Environment and Place Type and The Built Environment
Transect Applied to Place Type. She asked if there were any additional comments beyond what staff has
already marked up. Since there were no comments, they moved on to the descriptions on the Hamlets,
the Neighborhoods and the Downtown.
Mr. Thomas asked if an explanation would be provided on what some of the terms such as CT meant.
Ms. Echols asked how the Commission feels about these particular headings. She pointed out that they
had hamlets, neighborhood/villages, downtown and districts as the place types. She stated that the terms
all have different definitions. Hamlets seem to be sort of an odd term to use within a development area,
but they could not find a better term to use. She asked if anyone else had a better suggestion.
Ms. Thomas stated that it was very much organized as a hierarchy with hamlets being the smallest, which
generally were seen on the fringe of the map. She pointed out the location of each place type on the map.
She stated that there were not a lot of hamlets. Downtown was the primary place, which had been
identified very quickly by the community as a place to be preserved as the center not only geographically,
but also in terms of the most intensive uses and really as the heart of the community. She agreed with
Ms. Echols, and pointed out that other than going to some term like settlement that they did not come up
with anything. She noted that it was very useful to be able to distinguish different kind of places.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 5
Mr. Rieley pointed out that he had some misgivings about using the word hamlets because its meaning
does not quite apply to what they were talking about. He stated that one item of concern, which precedes
hamlet, was in the first paragraph in Place Types. Previously they had discussed the use of the word
"Distinct Place" in order to have consistency in the terminology. He asked that they go back to that
conversation and be consistent throughout the document.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Neighborhood/Village be changed to just Village and that they further
define it with the neighborhoods.
Ms. Catlin stated that they would follow through for consistency sake on that terminology. She stated that
the Commission raised the question on the building block elements, which were the hamlets,
neighborhood and downtown. She stated that the Commission was comfortable with these elements,
even though there might be a better word for hamlet that was not occurring to anybody right now. But in
terms of concept, the Commission was okay with this.
Ms. Echols stated that they might want to consider the Neighborhood/Village based on Mr. Thomas'
remarks.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the title be changed to just Neighborhood or use Village with the
Neighborhood.
Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Thomas' suggestion for clarity.
Ms. Echols asked that the Commission turn to page 45 of the Crozet Master Plan, which would help
explain what the CT's are.
Mr. Morris pointed out that the print was too small, which made it very difficult to read.
Ms. Echols pointed out that the different districts were CT-1 & 2, CT-3, CT-4, CT-5 and CT-6 in the
district. On page 45, those districts were shown in different colors that correlate with the map that was on
page 46. The CT-1 was more of a preservation area, which was shown in green. The CT-3, which is
colored yellow, is the least dense housing that is available. It really is speaking to the residential uses
more than the single-family detached uses. The CT-4 is starting to get into a mixture of uses, which is a
lower intensity commercial or that type of use in addition to residential uses perhaps with a higher
intensity residential use. The center is where they were going to have a pretty good mixture of uses,
which supports the downtown core, and Crozet would only have one color that was the downtown core.
The core would be located at the most intensively developed part. The center supports the downtown
core with a mix of uses and residential types of amenities. When applied to the Neighborhood, it is a
focal point and near by residential densities could support some of these activities. However, its market
area may extent beyond the quarter mile radius to 1 to 2 miles. It is serving a larger market area. The
core is the commercial hub for several neighborhood villages affecting an area of approximately 2 to 5
miles out from the center. The district is a different animal, which is a special single use area. An
extreme example would be the Airport, which is a single use area that really does not support a mix with
residential uses right there at the facility. That use was sort of set apart. She pointed out that in this
case, there are 3 of districts.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that these districts have the potential for mixing much more than an Airport, but
that an airport has some mix of uses along the perimeter. She noted that the purple was there to remind
us that they do really want to allow for and capture some jobs in Crozet because not only does that
support the downtown business community, but it also has some positive transportation implementations.
The lumber yard is currently very much an employment center and if it ever redevelops she felt that they
would want it to continue to offer a lot of employment potential because it was embedded in the heart of
the community and was within walking distance of many homes. In addition, that area was within walking
distance of many support services like groceries and restaurants, etc. One of the oldest districts in the
community was the ConAgra and Acme property. Once again, that area was shown in purple because
they hope and anticipate that there will be redevelopment activities taking place there. She pointed out
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 6
that in fact some activities already are and that district is very much coming alive. She stated that in the
r Crozet area none of these have to be as exclusively a single use as you might find in a bigger area. She
pointed out that if the Yancey Lumber Mill were part of the development area, that might truly be a single
use district because by its nature it does not mix well with a lot of other kinds of uses. But, for these other
areas in Crozet, they offer an opportunity for mixing. She stated that they were shown in purple so that
they know that is really where they want to emphasize the employment opportunities.
Ms. Higgins stated that titles across the top of the chart kind of implies that hamlet is over the green.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the hamlet could go from green to the orange pink. She pointed out that this
was not quite as broken down as the matrixes you will find later on specifically on page 49 on table 1.
Ms. Higgins stated that while she was reading this she specifically looked at how these fell under the titles
and the hamlets seem to imply that the neighborhood straddles the next two.
Ms. Catlin stated that Ms. Higgins' thought was that the titling across the top should more accurately
reflect what goes underneath it.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that was where she got the idea that the hamlet was the least intense and would
be around the green.
Ms. Thomas stated that the hamlet would have a center of possibly the CT-4 with the yellow and green
around that.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was confusing and suggested that there might be a way to clarify that using a
sliding scale.
Ms. Catlin stated that the place type should reflect more clearly the CT zone that it was representing.
WW
Ms. Thomas stated that staff tried to provide colors so that they could get a brief explanation of what the
colors meant while you were also looking at the map. She pointed out that certainly a larger matrix with
color could be substituted to the left of this map going back to pages 45 and 46. She pointed out that
from the consultant's standpoint that they have a multitude of backup matrixes.
Ms. Catlin suggested that they redirect the conversation a little bit because they were in the text piece
and not in the matrixes. She suggested that they stay with the text, but make the note that when they get
to the matrixes that issue may be something that they need to consider. She thanked Ms. Higgins for her
remarks on this section. She stated that they have defined what the CT numbers mean here and if
everybody feels comfortable in understanding that, then they could continue on through the text piece.
She suggested that they move on to Built Environment Corridor Type.
Mr. Edgerton stated the he had a suggestion. If someone sits down and starts to read this document and
begins with the narrative, and then they get to the hamlet and don't understand, then he would suggest
that they include a brief definition of what that is. He pointed out that the definition was very well laid out
on page 49 at the top. He suggested that they take that language and use it for Neighborhood Villages in
the same manner. He pointed out that the way this was being presented anticipates a lot of familiarity with
the terminology than perhaps someone looking at it has.
Ms. Catlin stated that a little more descriptive narrative needed to be added on these three items for
clarity so that people would be able to understand what they were talking about. She asked if there was
any suggestions on the Corridor Type or the Natural Environment Open Space System and Rural
Character.
Ms. Thomas suggested that on page 19 in the second sentence under The Built Environment: Corridor
Type that they add "with some corridors" for clarity.
Mr. Rieley suggested putting in a period after thoroughfares.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 7
Ms. Higgins stated that on page 19 it discussed site development guidelines and referred to the extensive
public hearing process. She pointed out that she was curious and had checked the meeting minutes and
it does not have a list of the people attending. She asked how many people who participated in the
meetings actually live in the growth area. She pointed out that she participated and did not live in the
growth area.
Ms. Catlin pointed out that they had documentation of the people who attended, email lists and things like
that which staff would be happy to provide. She stated that whether that has a place in a Comp Plan
document or not, she was not really sure. She noted that data does exist and staff could make it
available.
Ms. Higgins suggested that there needs to be something that goes with this section, possibly in a staff's
file, to clarify that. The lead sentence in this whole section of the Site Development Guidelines deals with
how extensive the public participation was. She asked that someone tell her what extensive means.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the word extensive be removed to just state the process.
Ms. Catlin stated that it was up to the Planning Commission whether they wanted to change that qualifier.
She pointed out that those lists could be made available to her since staff has all of that material. She
stated that her question to the Planning Commission was that she was not sure that the charge before
them right now was to evaluate the public participation process as much as it was to take the work that
the Board gave to them to go through and make this a Comp Plan Amendment. That is a question for the
Commission to determine.
Ms. Higgins stated that there was no data sheet in the document concerning this and since it was referred
to in several places in the document that she felt it should be provided.
Mr. Rieley suggested that a footnote be included telling where that information can be found.
Ms. Echols stated that there was a place at the end of the Master Plan called Community Process
Documentation that makes reference to the meetings and in some cases the number of attendees.
Ms. Higgins stated that it was very inconsistent. She asked that the modifiers be considered in this case
and be used as a lead into it.
Ms. Catlin stated that the suggestion might be just to make it read as a public participating process, but to
take out the word "extensive."
Mr. Rieley stated that he thought that it was extensive and would rather see the documentation for the
use of the word.
Ms. Catlin stated that they could possibly make that information available to the Commission to the best
extent possible so that the Commission could take a look at it. Then the Commission could decide if it
should be referenced in the plan or if it was just enough that they have the information since they could
support the use of the word "extensive", and then they could make that decision later on. She stated that
if the word "extensive" was left in, then the Commission wanted to know why it was being used.
Mr. Thomas suggested that they could possibly use a footnote.
Ms. Catlin stated that going back to the Corridor Types sentence, Mr. Rieley's suggestion was that they
get rid of the "and the continuum is inverted." She stated that he suggested that they add "distinctive" and
qualify "the corridors" to say "with some corridors." She asked if there was anything under Corridor Type
or should they move to Open Space System and Rural Character.
Ms. Thomas referred to the staff comment on the bottom of page 20 under Natural Environment Open
Space and Rural Character about the appropriate level of development for the recommended new parks
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 8
in Crozet. Staff has discussed this issue. In the eastern part there was a desire to preserve what they
call the knoll in kind of a natural form, but this was a development area and it might be that the parks
`'Wa� need a more urban style of development throughout Crozet. Crozet is so interesting because it is a
blending of an urban and a rural feel. It is not a development area quite like a Neighborhood One or
Neighborhood Two, so that is where it gets to be more of judgement call. She suggested that was
something for the Commission to think about in their discussion.
Ms. Catlin asked if there was any response to that or anything that needs to be reworked in these two
paragraphs.
Ms. Higgins stated regarding the rural character that she felt that staff's comments were more key to
trying to preserve more usefulness to the spaces that were reserved. She stated that they talked about
pedestrian interconnections and different pathways. She asked to speak for the horse community for
bridal path use, which was one thing that she has already talked with Dan Mahon about at length and
made some suggestions. This whole development area was displacing some uses that have existed for a
very long time. She pointed out that she had ridden in several parks that have incorporated bridal paths
due to pressure by the community, but also because it involves policing people on horseback which
deters inappropriate behaviors in areas that are natural and intended to be wooded and less available for
surveillance for people walking dogs or alone. She suggested that they identify that use in this document.
Ms. Catlin stated that in terms of what they might do with that, that she would want to see some attention
paid to multi -use such as walking, horseback riding and bridal uses, bicycling or running. She stated that
in a section that they worked on last time that there was some discussion about facilities and uses. She
suggested that might be incorporated in that section.
Mr. Edgerton stated that in the second sentence under Natural Environment it should be corrected to say,
"several elevated parcels were identified."
Ms. Higgins asked that a sentence be inserted to explain that there will be a range or variety of parks and
they will not be altered in the same way. She stated that it did not read that way.
Ms. Thomas stated that this was very general language in this section. She pointed out that it does not
only refer to the two major parks, but that those are the ones that involve the biggest projects.
Ms. Catlin pointed out that there was a section in Places, which they discussed last time that talks about
parks and recreation and recommendations, which gives a little bit more information. She stated that
referred to creating a network of public parks and greenways that work on a number of levels that defines
out four or five purposes and levels. She asked if that was language that addresses it.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that a lot of times people only read the section on guidelines, particularly when
staff meets with an applicant. She stated that a lot of times the other texts just get lost.
Ms. Catlin stated that she would like that restated here in the guidelines about the variety of parks. She
asked how the other Commissioners felt.
Mr. Thomas and Mr. Rieley stated that it was a good idea.
Ms. Catlin stated what she heard was that there would be some sort of statement or something that
echoes what was a little earlier in the document about there would be a range or variety in parks and
open space in recreational uses.
Ms. Thomas stated that they were proposing two major public facilities. There was a potential for a
trailhead on Crozet Avenue right at Lickinghole Creek, but the rest would come in as a part of the
development of those areas as pocket parks that was more neighborhood oriented.
NOW Ms. Catlin summarized that what the Commission was saying was that the pubic space network of Crozet
seeks to reinforce and build upon the concept of active recreation fields, unstructured recreation areas,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 9
natural areas, meadows, reserves and preserves. They are linked to the fullest extent possible through
the patterns of streams and greenway network. She asked if that gets at the kind of vision that the
Commission wants out there for the open space.
Mr. Rieley and Mr. Thomas both agreed with that language.
Ms. Catlin stated that in the first paragraph under Natural Environment Open Space System and Rural
Character on page 20, which was right after the Built Environment Corridor Type, there are some
sentences that do say some of that.
Ms. Thomas stated that it referred to unstructured recreation areas.
Ms. Catlin asked if the language in the first paragraph was sufficient for defining and putting out what you
want to see for open space system and rural character.
Mr. Rieley stated that it is with what Ms. Thomas' articulated about the intentional present of elevated
usable land. He asked if that was articulated in the document.
Ms. Catlin stated that it says that Crozet offers significant views to the mountains and surrounding forest
and farms. The community sends a clear message that it wants to preserve the aesthetic qualities and
agricultural history and character. To honor this several elevated parcels were identified and
recommended for preservation as open space.
Ms. Thomas stated that the intention is that the parcels will be maintained as meadow and in some cases
woodland. If you go to page 55 of the Master Plan, you will see a green infrastructure map that is a little
bit different than the other one in that it has some additional suggestions that are not hard and fast. For
instance, there was some superimposed language. If you go to eastern park, it says meadows on page
55. It also identifies pocket parks as green and squares as community garden playgrounds, which shows
some fields, etc. She pointed out that this was not meant to be so descriptive, but rather to show the
continuance of the types that you could have. She stated that information might help to clarify the variety.
Mr. Rieley stated that he felt almost the opposite way that he did the last time that he talked about how
descriptive that this part should be. He pointed out that he had argued for a lot of flexibility. From his
experience, all of the areas in green would become a target very quickly, and therefore holding the open
space is a very good thing and would require a lot of attention. He suggested that they take this section
very seriously.
Mr. Edgerton suggested adding something in the second to the last paragraph on page 20 where it states
that the preservation of these areas is in something close to their original state.
Ms. Catlin stated that the Commission would like to see something come back to them that strengthens
the idea of preservation of open space as opposed to it being a target for more developed recreational
space.
Mr. Rieley suggested adding to that "or development of any kind."
Ms. Echols called the Commission's attention to page 54 of the green infrastructure map in case they
wanted to add something to this document, which relates to the green infrastructure map.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that she had read somewhere that there was a percentage of green to the
developable area. She asked if she read that it was 50%.
Ms. Thomas stated that there were a couple of different percentages that show up. In one place it said
that 35% of the Crozet's developable area was in floodplain or steep slopes. Then in another part of the
document there was a reference that 50% remains in green, which would include the undevelopable
areas.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 10
• Ms. Catlin stated that the Commission wants the words "active recreational fields" taken out of the
open space discussion. She asked if the elevated parcels were something separate and distinct
from that or was it something that since there was two of them that you think it is important to call
those out as protected areas to the extent that you can in the language of this plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that he agreed with Ms. Higgins that they need a strong rationale for preserving those.
He stated that they needed a good strong reason for doing this and then they need to stick by it.
Ms. Catlin pointed out that there were two specific sites that are under consideration for this particular
protection.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the consultant used the term upland to really distinguish the area from
floodplain, which was often what they got for open space. She pointed out that it was upland because
they were more visible since they were the remnant of the pasture and orchard in many cases in Crozet.
Ms. Catlin reflected back to the Commission a little bit about what they talked about on this section. In
the first paragraph, the Commission suggested that they get that active recreation feel out of there and to
reorder that a little bit so that it emphasizes the natural areas meadows, reserves, etc. Then in the second
paragraph, the idea was that somehow there was a strong statement and justification for the elevated
parcels and why they need to be reserved to the strongest extent possible.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that Ms. Higgins made a good point that elevated was an irrelevant term since it
was a qualifier.
Mr. Rieley suggested the use of the parcels that are specifically identified on the plan.
• Ms. Catlin stated that there needs to be a better descriptor of what that space really is.
`WOW Ms. Catlin stated that that the next section was Stormwater, which had a recreation paragraph there that
might need clarifying it a little bit. She asked if anybody had anything on this section or on the paragraph
on recreation. She stated that since there were no comments that section would remain as it is. She
asked if there was any comment on the discussion concerning the dark skies. There being no comments,
she noted that text would remain as it was. She pointed out that the Commission was now done with the
text part of this Comp Plan Amendment and they would begin on the graphics portion.
Ms. Higgins asked if anything could be done with the power company poles in Crozet to make the lights
comply with our ordinance. She suggested that something should be included in this document since
pole lights were still going up in that area.
Ms. Catlin stated that the Commission has another work session coming up. She pointed out that the
discussion about the map was going to get them to the discussion which they have been holding off for a
while, and that is does a line really mean a line and does a color really mean a color. She noted that they
certainly did not want to rush that discussion. She pointed out that they could adjourn here now knowing
that they have worked through a great percentage of the document and know that next time they need to
do the map discussion and the matrixes. She stated that prior to that, staff would make available to them
the public participation documentation for the Commission's consideration of mentioning that in the
document.
Ms. Higgins stated that she had been reading the discussions that the Board has had about the additional
area. She asked if this whole document does not include percentages of numbers or any criteria about
that additional area.
Ms. Catlin stated that there was a qualifier in an earlier part of the document that depended on whether
that was going to be put in or out. She stated that the Commission got to that section before the Board
actually took their action. Therefore, they put that someplace and said that depending on which way the
Board goes this will be brought into the document in a proper way.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 11
Ms. Higgins stated that when you are looking at the maps that there was no way to tell know that all of
this does not correlate to where the red line is that picks up in those areas.
Ms. Thomas stated that the Place Type Map shows colors in the new northern area.
Ms. Higgins asked if any of the percentages and numbers have been adjusted. She questioned if the
population was the same. She pointed out that area was a chunk of land, which was more densely
populated than a lot of the whole Master Planned area. She felt that information was crucial in order to
adjust the figures in the document.
Ms. Thomas stated that staff would have to check the development area statistics.
Ms. Catlin stated that a general comment would be that given that the boundary adjustment is done and it
is a done deal, that they need to go back through the document and make sure that is represented
consistently throughout.
Ms. Thomas stated that the map was generally in that area an acknowledgement of what was there
already with just a little bit of recommendation for the undeveloped area. The point was not so much to
beef up the numbers in the community, but to adjust the boundaries to reflect really a functioning
community.
Mr. Rieley suggested that they add an addendum that says on this date the boundary was changed and
here is the map and what it looks like and here are the locations for these particular sets of data.
Ms. Thomas stated that information would be added to the addendum section or add it somewhere in an
appropriate place.
Ms. Catlin summarized the major points of discussion as follows:
• The idea of bringing into consistency the "distinct place" versus "place" throughout the document as
discussed last time that was an up front kind of issue.
• An addendum should be made that discusses the boundary adjustment, the impact on the map and
that kind of thing.
• Document the contribution of the public participation process so that the Commission could decide
whether "extensive" is an appropriate word to use and can it stay in there.
• In the built environment area for hamlet, neighborhood and downtown, the Commission wants some
definition there that is pulled from the matrix that makes it clear to the reader right at this moment
exactly what those are talking about.
• Note for when they get to the matrixes when they look at the titling of Place Type and how it lines up
with the CT zones to consider if that is confusing to the public and if there is a better way that they
can represent that.
• In the Built Environment Corridor Type, rewrite the second sentence so that it says that with some
corridors the existing settlement follows a linear pattern along an important thoroughfare.
• There was a lot of discussion on the Open Space System. The sentence needs to be reworked to say
natural areas, meadows, reserves, preserves, unstructured recreational areas are linked ..." That in
the second sentence there needs to be a better description of what they were talking about with
several elevated parcels and that there needs to be some strong statement in there as to the
justification as to why those should be so carefully protected.
• There was some mention in the areas where they talk about the uses that they try to incorporate
some existing uses like bridal paths, horse trails and those kinds of things to make sure that language
gets in there.
She asked if there was anything else that needs to be added.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 12
Ms. Echols added the following comment:
• There needs to be some consideration of pages 54 and 55 to consider the matrix and the map. The
Commission wanted to come back to that after they have looked at the map to see what they wanted
to do with that.
Ms. Catlin stated that next time the Commission would focus on maps and matrixes to finish this review
In summary, the Albemarle County Planning Commission held the fourth facilitated worksession on the
Crozet Master Plan. Lee Catlin facilitated the work session and assisted the Commission in their review
of Section E, which was now Section G, entitled Form: Maps and Site Development Guidelines, of the
proposed Master Plan for Crozet. The Commission reviewed and discussed staff's recommended
Comprehensive Plan language for changes to Section G of the technical consultants' Crozet Master Plan
final report. The Commission discussed the proposal and provided comments and suggestions for
changes to the document, but took no formal action. Staff will make the changes and bring it back to the
Commission for review. The Commission requested information from staff regarding the public
participation during the consultant's process. The Commission will begin the next session discussing the
maps and matrixes of the document.
Mr. Thomas stated that the next work session was on the Belvidere Preliminary Rezoning Request.
Belvidere Preliminary Rezoning Request - The applicant, Stonehaus Development, proposes a 240
acres development with a mixture of single-family homes, townhouses, apartments and a commercial
area. The proposal area, known as the Belvedere Tract, is situated north of Rio Road between the
Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Dunlora Subdivision in Neighborhood 2. While the applicant has not
formally submitted a rezoning request, it is expected that they will request a rezoning from R-4
(Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). (Michael Barnes)
Mr. Barnes summarized the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) He stated that this
°'` w was a preliminary review for the rezoning of this property. The major thrust of this process is to get input
early on in the process from staff, the applicant and the general public. This was to try to give the
developer an idea of the major issues that they would be facing and also to sort of steer them in the right
direction. The purpose of the staff report was to sort of draw out the principal questions that the staff has
and to try to get some feedback from the Commission on what they think of those concerns. Also, staff
would like to know any additional concerns that the Commission might have that the applicant should be
considering when they come back with a rezoning proposal at some point in the future. Staff's major
concerns are lumped into three major areas:
1. The Meadow Creek Parkway or such other named road and preserving the capacity for another
north/south connector east of Route 29 and still within the development area.
2. With the upcoming Master Plan.
3. Some of the interconnections to the adjacent properties and the importance thereof for those
connections.
There are a series of other design questions that staff has which are noted in the staff report. He asked if
the Commission had any particular comments to those other concerns that they would like to add that
staff would be happy to move those forward. The applicant's proposal is proposing
two sections. The site located north of Rio Road east of the railroad tracks and west of Dunlora. The
applicant has discussed two different sections of their proposals, which is shown as the southern portion
and upper portion. In the staff report, staff refers to the southern, middle and northern areas of the
property. The southern portion includes the commercial zone and the urban density residential. Then the
proposal moves upward into an area of townhouses with smaller single family lots. He pointed out that
the area shown in yellow are larger lots. The applicant has not given staff any specifics on square
footages or on the range of dwelling units.
Staff believes that the project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in the following areas. Staff
has explained its concerns in the staff report and asks that the Planning Commission provide direction on
these concerns. The first issue deals with Belvedere's Effects on Regional Transportation Plans:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 13
• The Meadow Creek Parkwav has been on the books for years. Staff has had discussions with Mr.
Ford, at the MPO level, about the nature of the road and some of the members on the Boards to try to
interpret how this road should be in the future or the need for it. Staff is using the Comprehensive
Plan as a guide for where this road will be built as envisioned in the Comp Plan for this section. The
applicant proposes running the road along the railroad track which needs about 100 feet of right-of-
way in this section. This would accommodate a kind of limited or controlled access road. The
Meadow Creek Parkway is talking about more of a controlled access. The applicant here is talking
about a series of curb cuts and road intersections in this area, which somewhat changes the nature of
the road if that was to become the road for Meadow Creek Parkway. In this area the applicant has
their road network internalized for the possibility of a controlled access. The applicant is proposing
that the road alignment continues out towards the north part of the site. The Comprehensive Plan
looks at two different possible alignments because of environmental, floodplain and topological
restraints.
• Staff supports the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II and believes that the developer should
assist in the establishment of this road. Does the Commission continue to support the
concept of Phase 11?
Phase I of the Parkway has been designed. Phase I is contemplated as a 2-lane road with limited
access and will run between the Route 250 By-pass and Rio Road. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes the necessity for Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I and Phase II and assumes that
Phase II will be a 4-lane, limited access facility. The Parkway's Phase II will run from Rio Road
northward to Polo Grounds Road and onto the Hollymead Community (Attachment H). Since the
Parkway linkage between downtown Charlottesville and the recently approved developments in
the Hollymead Community and relieve congestion pressure on Route 29, staff strongly supports
the eventual establishment of Phase II (or a road performing a similar function) and believes that
accommodation of this road is needed as part of any proposal for the Belvedere site.
• Staff might support the applicant suggestion to shift Phase II's alignment to run along side
of the railroad; however, staff is concerned about environmental, topographic, and other
constraints involved with the alignment(s) in the northern portion of Belvedere. Staff
believes that further assessment of the constraints is needed before a rezoning northern
portion of the site can occur. Does the Commission believe that the northern portion of the
proposal should be deferred to allow any constraint concerns related to the alignment of
Phase II to be resolved?
There are numerous challenges in establishing an alignment for Phase II of the Parkway. The
Rivanna River, wetlands associated with the river, the railroad track, existing development and
topography are all complicating factors. When Dunlora was planned, it was contemplated that the
Parkway would be on the Belvedere track adjacent to the western boundary of Dunlora
(Attachment H). As road moved northward, the concept suggested one of two alignments are
possible in the northern portion of the Belvedere Track. The first alignment would continue the
road along the railroad tracks and cross the river adjacent to the railroad bridge (Attachment H,
option 1). Topography, floodplain, and numerous wetlands make this portion of the alignment very
difficult. The second alignment would break to the east and cross the Rivanna where two bluffs
are in close proximity (Attachment H, option 2). This alignment would take the Parkway through
the Bentivar Subdivision.
The Belvedere proposal calls for shifting Phase II's alignment to the west in the southern portion of
the site and then following the "Option 1 Alignment" in the northern portion of the site (Attachment
H). Staff supports shifting the alignment to the west and running the controlled access Parkway
along the tracks in the middle portion of the Belvedere track, but staff has strong reservations
about limiting Phase II to Option 1 in the northern section of Belvedere before all of the
environmental and engineering constraints can be fully understood.
• The applicant would like Phase 11 to change in character from a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road
and from a controlled access road to more of a typical street, especially in the southern
portion of the site. Staff is concerned that an increased number of intersections will
decrease the capacity of the road. Furthermore, staff believes the Master Plan's
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 14
transportation planning component is the best venue for deciding what the nature of Phase
II should be. Does the Commission have any preference or concerns related to design
nature and purpose of Phase II?
The applicant also proposes changing the nature of Phase II from limited access road to more of a
typical street and reducing the number of lanes from 4 to 2 (Attachment B). Staff believes that the
Master Plan is the mechanism for answering the question of whether the nature of the road should
be changed because the Master Plan's transportation component will detail the capacity that
Phase II will be required to have in order to make it a regional interconnection. Finally, if the
Parkway is to proceeds adjacent to the tracks, then it will the either have to go around the Fairview
Swim Club or relocate it and the Master Plan process will assist in answering that question.
Staff stated that their discussions tonight was not to discuss which alignment was the best one or the
other, but just to point out the different restraints on the applicant's two proposals. He pointed out that
staff has been directed to review the two proposals, but at this point in time staff has not had a chance to
respond back to some of the requests. There is sort of a parallel track that was going along which was
the Master Planning process for the northern portions of the County, which would be looking at
transportation linkages as well as identifications of possible centers and linking those centers to the land
use concepts with the transportation. That leads to the staff's next concern that they don't know exactly
how to address. Staff has had discussions with the applicant on this topic. If you look at the bigger scale
of the Neighborhood II, where does it make sense to have the focal points. He asked if the focal points
would be in Belvedere or in this northern portion or do they want them down by Rio Road or other places.
Staff has not taken a strong stance on this question and does not have a strong opinion to say that this is
an area that needs to be preserved for the focal point until the process starts. It is an open question in
whether those options should be preserved so that it can be investigated during the Master Plan process.
He pointed out that was a question for the Planning Commission.
Staff pointed out that the next question dealt with the Eastern Connection.
• The Eastern Connector
How should the possibility of the Eastern Connector be considered as part of a rezoning?
Or should it be not considered because the alignments for the road remain very vague at
this time?
Recent work by the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Committee (CHART), which
is a subcommittee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), may recommended the
establishment of an Eastern Connector which would link Route 29 to Route 20. CHART has not
identified any possible alignments for this road. There are two possible alignments could affect
this project. One alignment would cross the Rivanna near Penn Park and connect to Rio Road.
This alignment could affect how the entrance to main entry road of Belvedere should be designed.
The second possible alignment would cross the Rivanna River in or near the Key West subdivision
and then potentially pass either through Belvedere or follow the Rivanna's floodplain northward.
This second alignment would have far greater impacts to the Belvedere site and the existing
neighborhood surrounding Belvedere.
At this time, it is not anticipated that the Eastern Connector will be considered as regional
transportation planning component in the upcoming Master Plan for the Communities of
Hollymead and Piney Mountain and Neighborhoods 1 and 2.
Mr. Rieley asked to add one point since he has not missed any CHART meetings. He stated that to the
best of his knowledge that nobody has suggested that the Eastern Connector go through Key West.
Mr. Morris stated that it was just a natural option that has been on the table ever since they were talking
about the Eastern By-pass.
Mr. Benish stated that CHART has shown a general corridor where the study will take place.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that it was shown in the CHART document as a blob and it does not show lines
which means anything. From his work on the committee, he pointed out that there was some lines that
many people are interested in, but that was not one of them.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 15
Mr. Barnes pointed out that the blob right now was showing the bottom portion along Rio Road, which
certainly would have an impact on that entrance.
Belvedere's Effects on the Upcoming Master Plan.
As noted above, the County will be hiring a consultant by late spring to perform a Master Plan for the
Communities of Hollymead and Piney Mountain and Neighborhoods 1 and 2. The Master Plan is
expected to take up to two years to complete. It is expected that the Master Plan will focus on
regional transportation solutions and the identification of commercial and neighborhood centers.
Unlike the Master Plan recently completed for Crozet, this plan is not expected to achieve the design
detail for the entire study area, but instead, it will select a limited number of centers or corridors where
a concentration of the urban form will be focused.
Staff believes that there are two areas of guidance that a completed Master Plan would provide.
These areas are the alignment and nature of Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (as discussed above)
and an identification of center locations within Neighborhood 2 and the character of these centers
(i.e., neighborhood verses community verses regional focus).
Identification of Center Location and Character.
Staff is concerned that approval of the Belvedere proposal will set locations of centers without the
benefit of the Master Plan. The applicant believes that the only viable center location is near Rio
Road. Does the Commission believe that the Belvedere proposal can move forward without
negatively affecting the Master Plan and the future locations of centers?
One of the Master Plan's major benefits is its broad scope and its ability to focus future
development into walkable nodes or centers. This portion of Neighborhood 2 is underserved from
a commercial service standpoint and is ripe for the infill of several neighborhood -scale centers.
Undoubtedly, the Master Plan will recommend several centers in and around the Belvedere track
and it will determine their scale and character.
r. Staff is concerned that if the Belvedere proposal moves forward that there is a possibility that the
outcome of the Master Plan will be altered. The applicant has argued that the only economically
feasible location for a center is along Rio Road because of the traffic volumes associated with this
road. They recognize that the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II has the possibility of significantly
increasing the vehicle volume within their development and thus allow for the possibility of another
center within the northern portion of the Belvedere track. However, they do not believe that Phase
II will be built any time soon and they are extremely hesitant to include any non-residential uses in
the northern portion of the site. Therefore, the applicant is only willing to consider mixed use
options in the southern most portion of the proposal.
Design Issues
The proposal's conceptual design is shown in Attachments A and B. The design is deliberately
general in nature, but with the limited amount of detail, it is unclear to what degree the applicant is
incorporating these issues into the design. Any rezoning proposal for this area should incorporate
these items. Staff encourages the Commission to augment or clarify any items on this list.
Staff pointed out that the final concern was a very specific question on the possibilities of certain
interconnections.
Interparcel Connections. Aside from the major regional transportation road planned through this
area, the applicant should maximize the number of vehicular and pedestrian connections to the
surrounding neighborhoods. Attachment I shows a series of possible connections. Staff believes that
most of these connections should be made, but the most important interconnection are as follows:
i) The three connections to Dunlora. If a neighborhood center is planned for Belvedere,
then the residents of Dunlora should be able to get to it without going out onto Rio Road.
Staff believes that the risk of cut -through traffic in Dunlora (i.e., Belvedere residents
traveling to Rio Road) is minimal because the Belvedere residents will use the major
north/south roads within their own development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 16
ii) The Free State Bridge Connection. Again, if Belvedere is to have a neighborhood center,
then the Northfields residents should be able to access the center directly. This bridge
connection also provides the Belvedere residents with a second means of access to Rio
Road. Note: Replacement of Free State Bridge is in the County's Six -Year Secondary
Road Improvement Plan.
iii) Connection to future development on the parcels north of Dunlora and east of Belvedere
to allow for future development that might occur on that property.
iv) A new connection to Carrsbrook Drive via a bridge. This would provide future residents
in the northern portion of Belvedere with access to Route 29 without the need to use Rio
Road.
An interconnection of special interest to staff is one proposed by the applicant. Attachment I
proposes a direct connection between the Rio Road/ Greenbrier Drive intersection and the
proposed Belvedere neighborhood center. While this connection has not been fully investigated,
it is an intriguing possibility that would open that whole area up to redevelopment and probably
make the Belvedere neighborhood center more vibrant by tying it into the activity along Rio Road.
This interconnection might also provide the opportunity to shift Belvedere's main entrance to the
westward along Rio and to reserve Belvedere's currently proposed entrance for the limited
access Meadow Creek Parkway.
• Mixture of Housing Types and Affordable Housing. Neighborhood 2 lacks in the diversity of
affordable housing that is found in other portions of the Development Area. The County is currently
working on policies that will increase the amount of affordable housing within new developments to a
minimum of 15%. Staff believes that a diversity of housing types is one of the most efficient way to
achieve affordable housing and will seek to have a significant percentage of Belvedere's housing
stock be deemed affordable.
• Open Space and Trails. The current proposal shows several small parks. These should be
designed to be focal points of the community and provide an appropriate set of amenities.
Additionally, the greenway trail system linkages should be provided between these spaces and the
Rivanna Floodplain where possible.
• Environmental Protection. Sensitive environmental features should be placed into open space.
The stream valleys and critical slopes associated with them should be protected to the extent
possible. Impacts from stormwater facilities and sewer utility lines should be limited and the design
should contemplate how these facilities will be incorporated into the open space amenities such as a
trail system. Additionally, the tops of the critical slopes should be included within the open space and
not included within individual lots. This encourages tree removal and grading on these slopes in
order to create a buildable lot. Finally, the Rivanna Floodplain offers excellent opportunities for active
and passive recreation. Access should be provided to this area should be provided to the general
public and not limited exclusively to Belvedere's residents.
Implementation of the Neighborhood Model. With the general nature of the concept plans
(Attachments A and B), it is difficult to determine whether the applicant has met the various principles of
the Neighborhood Model. It does appear that the plan calls for interconnected streets with sidewalks, tree
streets and buildings framing the street. Conceptual grading for the site will be important as well as the
development of neighborhood center.
Mr. Benish stated that since this was a new process he wanted to step back a little bit and make sure that
everybody understands what they were trying to achieve. The Commission would not be taking any
direction tonight, but just to provide some direction to the applicant and staff. This process identifies a
way to help the applicant and staff define what the significant issues and expectations are before they
enter into a rezoning process. This is a way to provide some direction to the applicant early on in the
process to provide some direction. He pointed out that this process was similar to the way staff looks at
public projects to identify whether it is consistent with policies or not and touch on expectations for design.
But the compliance with the plan review process is not in and of itself a review of the site plan, but the
review of concepts to ensure that it is consistent with the policies. Staff wants to make sure that the
members of the public are aware that is the kind of level that they are at. Staff has found a lot of pieces
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 17
of this consistent with the Comprehensive Plan particularly in the kinds of land uses that are proposed.
He noted that a lot of this property is zoned with urban R-4 zoning, which is an important factor to keep in
mind. Last week during a discussion about the Six -Year Road Plan, several Board members raised the
issue of whether the concept of the Meadow Creek Parkway should be reconsidered and alternatives be
reevaluated to the concept, and they directed staff to begin that type of an evaluation. That discussion
came up again at the MPO when they were discussing the proposed CHART plan. The MPO Committee
recognized what the County Board of Supervisors had asked staff to do and is going to follow that
process. Staff is working on that now and is determining the most effective way by which to go through
that type of analysis requested by the Board. That is just too new on staff's plate to be able to tell the
Commission exactly how they are going to address that. There are a couple of studies that staff is
proposing for the next Neighborhood Plan what is in effect the Phase III Route 29 Corridor Transportation
Study, which is referred to as the 29/H250 Study. Those are several potential opportunities that they
could use to help address that issue. At present staff is trying to collect their thoughts on what is the best
approach for looking at these possible alternatives.
Mr. Rieley asked to make a statement concerning this project. He suggested that the name be changed
from Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II because it was not even connected to Meadow Creek Parkway
Phase I. He stated that he had been involved with the City's Phase I Meadow Creek Parkway, but it has
nothing to do with this project. He stated that therefore he did not have a conflict of interest. He stated
that one thing that has become apparent at CHART when they were looking at the funding for what was
called the Phase II Meadow Creek Parkway was that the way that project has been conceived and
thought of is not really going to happen. He stated that he really thought that it was right that the Board
was stepping back and reevaluating that connection within the context of the kinds of roadways that they
had been talking about here. He noted that also CHART and the MPO has been discussing this in
dealing with networks and small scaled roads and not trying to build failed highways. One of the things
he supposed was an opportunity for this project coming to the Commission and is a problem was that he
thought that they were at a stage in which this northern leg that runs up to Free State is going to have to
be reconsidered or reconceived. To have it reconceived as part of this project is an opportunity and a
problem.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Ms. Thomas' last statement. In the past the Commission worked through the list
of questions. He stated that if there were no objections that they would begin by working through the list
of questions. He asked if any Commissioner had any comments generally about the project.
Ms. Higgins asked what was the terminus of Phase I of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Barnes stated that the terminus was right about the mouth of the entrance of Dunlora.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was in front of Ktech.
Ms. Higgins stated that if Phase I was done and it actually ends at Rio Road then it was going to create
that intersection anyway. She questioned how much flexibility they had.
Mr. Benish stated that Phase I ended at the railroad bridge.
Mr. Graham stated that for clarification on Phase I, that actually Meadow Creek Parkway would be a
continuation into Rio Road. The East side of Rio Road/Park Street would actually key into that road.
Ms. Higgins stated that it would become the straight through, but actually at the entrance of Dunlora.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that Phase I and Phase II of Meadow Creek Parkway do not touch, but both
actually run into Rio Road but don't run into each other. He pointed out that it does not make sense to
call it the same roadway.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that it could connect, which leads to another question. He asked whether it
would be better for it to connect and continue on around, as the applicant was proposing, by the railroad
tracks or come in by the church.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 18
Mr. Barnes pointed out that staff does not know how to address those alignment type of issues. He stated
that it might be a possibility to connect the two, but from staff's standpoint we are trying to avoid that
sensitive topic. He stated that quite honestly they did not know quite how to align it because there was a
lot of traffic.
Mr. Benish stated that he did not sense that they were far away with the concept of the applicant here.
Basically, the applicant followed the Free State Road alignment, which was a different roadway that really
was in the only remaining corridor that they could probably get a public road in and was going to have to
suffice for whatever north connections that were made in there. Certainly at the rezoning level, if they
have to build that intersection at Route 29, that would be an important issue. He stated in the context of
looking back at policy and broadly where that connection is going on Rio Road, that staff does not see
that as a significant issue right now at this level.
Mr. Rieley stated that what the Commission needs to give guidance on was whether or not this notion of a
continuation of the road that comes out of the City actually becomes a 4-lane highway and runs up
towards the north as currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if that was something that
the Commission feels comfortable saying that this project needs to acknowledge and work around. Or
was it whether that roadway would be more appropriate if conceived of in a different way and could be
accommodating as a kind of neighborhood street that the applicants are now proposing.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that part of that question was whether it was two- or four -lane. The subset of that
was if it was an urban typical street with very limited access control or was it more of a more limited
access control more similar to Phase I division with the two-lane limited access. He stated that to the
best that he could understand it, that the applicant was proposing a two-lane road that has multiple
access points on it. He asked for the Commission's guidance on the number of access points that the
applicant could have along the road itself.
Mr. Rieley stated that the old version was 4-lane with limited access. He stated that was the way that it
was conceived.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that she had been involved with the consultant in this study. She stated that at
55 miles per hour criteria with limited access was why they had this swing out because of the railroad
tracks and the floodplain. If they were not at the 55 miles per hour criteria, then hugging the railroad and
the crossing could be done with much less radius to it. There was a lot of discussion about the road
alignment in a safe corridor against the railroad. It made a lot of sense not to leave it unusable or a hard
to access piece of property as a slice. It got into specifics with a pretty close alignment, but it still has an
opportunity to fluctuate based on what the exact findings would be. If you talk about the Free State option
and try to avoid upgrading the railroad crossing it makes sense for a road with a similar function to hug
the railroad. She pointed out that it made a lot of sense for a road to follow along a railroad for a very
acceptable transportation corridor.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the current Comp Plan calls for a 4-lane roadway. As Ms. Higgins indicated
that back in the mid-90's when she was on a Task Force that they sort of stepped back from the original
limited access with the 55 miles per hour concept and what the Comp Plan calls for. The Comp Plan calls
for the 45 miles per hour design speed with a controlled access roadway. It provided for three access
points, but the Comp Plan calls for one access point at the intersection location between Rio Road and
River View and there were two others towards the other river. The other thing was that in 2001, an
additional paragraph was added. The paragraph said that the concepts of Phase I should be considered
and incorporated to the extent that was feasible in Phase II, which was a way to suggest that the roadway
might evolve without a study to determine from a regional network standpoint whether that could be done
as to avoid a roadway. He noted that was a baby step towards a transition. He pointed out that the intent
was to reflect the Jones Study Report. He pointed out that it definitely calls for it to be 4-lanes. He
pointed out that it introduced the notion of something different and it at the 45 miles per hour design
speed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 19
Ms. Higgins pointed out that there was one between the crossing of the railroad and Rio Road and then
two between the railroad and Route 20 north.
Mr. Benish stated that was correct, which would allow for access points to undeveloped property, which
again give the potential to work with developers to get portions of that road incorporated in their plans.
He pointed out that the two were included for the possibility for the back entrance for South Forest Lakes
in combination with Polo Grounds Road to tie into it.
Mr. Rieley stated that the issue of crossing the river was a huge issue. In order for this access to serve
any kind of volume for major transportation that there has to be a crossing of the river, which was very
expensive and there was no money to do it with now. One of the questions that the Commission has to
grapple with was to what degree should they embrace a neighborhood street that stops and does not
continue further. Also, to what degree do they leave it open for that roadway to extend to the north
knowing that there will be tremendous resistance by the adjacent communities.
Mr. Thomas stated that the purpose of the connector road going through there was to get the traffic to the
parkway or to the Eastern Connector. He suggested that they possible leave open the option for future
connection of the dead-end in the future.
Mr. Barnes stated that leads on to the next question. He stated that when you start to dead-end that road
that you leave it open that it seems that the applicant would be least accepting of it in this area. He asked
the Chairman if the Commission would be willing to have more of a dialogue with the applicants by asking
them some of these questions. He pointed out that all of the information received from the applicant had
been included, but that staff does not have all of the answers. He suggested that if the Commission has
further questions that they should ask the applicant. He stated that hopefully the Master Plan would start
to answer some of those questions regarding the interconnectivity, particularly from Hollymead to this
community.
Mr. Rieley stated that they had skipped to the issue of the upcoming Master Plan and its time frame and
the degree to which that work could inform our decisions relative to what we are deciding here. He noted
that ultimately it would be better if these kinds of decisions were being made within the context of a
broader area.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that he understood that the applicant does not want to wait for the Master Plan
process.
Ms. Higgins stated that there was a similar situation in Crozet with their Master Plan in starting the
process by right and trying to hold the developer until the Master Plan was completed. She pointed out
that there was one thing very unique about this particular parcel or this group of parcels. These parcels
have the railroad tracks, the river and Rio Road, which was a peninsula. Even if it was within a Master
Plan, the railroad was like dealing with God to try to cross. She pointed out that it would take years to
work out that issue. She stated that the Master Plan was very important, but that if you isolated this piece
she did not know if the decisions within the Master Plan about where to put the commercial area,
towncenter or how the road system would work because it was very limited. She noted that the applicant
could go with the by -right development under R-4 zoning. She stated that it really was a peninsula and if
there was any time to justify it that she would say that this was a segment that just does not have the
flexibility to fit within a bigger plan if that makes any significance.
Mr. Rieley stated that was a good point, but that he also was not quite ready yet to drop the north/south
connector that is important.
Ms. Higgins suggested that perhaps there was a way to collaborate for a compromise and get part of it
with a right-of-way for 2-lanes. She stated that she did not know if they would make any headway
because the road was so expensive. She stated that she did not think that it should be a neighborhood
road, but she was not sure that it needs to be 4-lanes. She suggested that there might be a way to do a
2-lane with some access points instead of building it. She stated that there might be a way to accomplish
something in the middle and actually give that feedback through the process of all of these decisions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 20
NUW Mr. Rieley stated that regarding the Master Plan and the external connections with the role this piece fits
into this system that he would be more comfortable moving ahead with this as a discreet element if they
had a better sense of how that was working. But, he pointed out that he did not think it was reasonable to
ask the developer to wait two years for that information. He stated that he wondered if there was a way in
which they could structure the consultant's work in such as way that they are looking at these
connections. Clearly this is a planning issue that they need to take a fresh look at.
Mr. Barnes stated that there were actually two elements of that being what are the connections and the
possible centers. Staff has been wrestling with the fact that the applicant does have a fair amount of by
right potential. He asked if there was some way that they could meet half -way and compromise to
develop a portion of it and the other portion of it could be preserved for one of those other issues for the
road or the centers. He felt that one of the concepts, but he did not feel that they could do that tonight. He
stated that he heard the discussion about the potential need to keep that the road sections open. He
asked how the Commission would feel if they could preserve some of the roadway options and move
forward with the rezoning to allow them achieve some of their lots for higher density and then you get the
road connections based on the lots. The other question is if there is anything else that they want to see
up here besides the residential type of uses or single-family type of uses.
Mr. Thomas supported the idea of preserving or saving the area for future connections, which would
leave the option open for the Eastern Connector. He asked if the applicant was willing to put all of those
options in there for connectors.
Mr. Morris asked if it was appropriate to ask the applicants some questions about the roadway
Mr. Mike Stoneking stated that when they purchased the property back in 1988 before the Crozet Master
Plan process had started, they had urged the County to select this area for the first Master Plan process.
He pointed out that Crozet became the first choice. Subsequent to that, they began to engage in the
fir,,• planning process for this parcel and the general issues surrounding it. He stated that what had been
pointed out tonight was consistent with their conclusions about this property. The objections are fairly
limited with the number of impacts being fairly well defined on adjacent properties because there are so
few of them with the railroad barrier for the connection to Northfields. He stated that they concluded at the
end of their preliminary evaluation after reviewing 8 concept plans that the parkway was a critical issue.
He pointed out that they had tried to understand on their property whether it needed to be reserved for
that future connection. He stated that they had tried to anticipate reality during this planning process. He
pointed out that what the Commission eluded to was the conclusion that they arrived at a year or so ago.
That was that it was unlikely that this section of the parkway was going to be built in his lifetime. He stated
there was also the notion of whether a town center was realistic on this property. Their conclusion was
that it was not realistic that the northern area could be a viable town center because it does not connect
to anything. He stated that logically if there was the sense of the Commission that that they could define
the issues so that the range of options was fairly limited so they could accommodate some or all of those
options in a Master Plan, then they would be happy to try to do that. But what they could not do was wait
for two more years for the Master Plan that may not provide any more information than they have today or
any more insight as to how realistically they could develop the property which linked to the economic
viability.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the applicant reserve the area for the 4-lane road and asked if there would be
matter of a time frame that they could do that. He stated that the question was whether the Commission
continues to support the concept of Phase II. He stated that he would continue to support it.
Mr. Craddock stated that he would continue to support Phase II.
Ms. Higgins stated that she did not think that it would be consistent with the Plan to allow a reservation of
right-of-way for two additional lanes to just sit out there for their life time.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Commissioners agreed that the term be used for a road serving a similar
function.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 21
En
Mr. Edgerton agreed to have a similar road with a similar function connecting up to it, but that he was very
uncomfortable in how specific the alignments were.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to have information from a consultant study on the Y intersection from
this property onto adjacent properties.
Ms. Higgins stated that there have been some studies done on that.
Mr. Benish pointed out that an environmental assessment has not been done.
Ms. Higgins stated that there has not been an assessment of the by right impact. She asked if they
should plan for a road that would never be built or pick one that has the viability. If this property was
rezoned that they could potentially lose the opportunity to do any of this because there was no proffers.
She stated that she hoped that a compromise was possible.
Bob Hauser, of Darby Road, Frank Stoner, of Chestnut Oak Lane, and Don Skelly, of Ownesville Road,
were present to speak for the developers.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that he was in support of the interconnections to the adjacent properties.
Mr. Thomas stated that it was the consensus of the Commission to support the connector road and that
they should continue evaluating the need to provide the interconnection.
Mr. Benish stated that what he was hearing was that the concept for roadway interconnections, which he
interpreting was providing a road that would provide for a northern connection, was something that they
still wanted incorporated. If the consultant wanted it to be done in a certain way that they need to
continue to evaluate how that is being done.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission cares about the number of access points, but they would be open
to consider more than one access point. He stated that they should continue to leave the options open for
interconnections.
Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission supports the Neighborhood Model, but that they need to look at it
in terms of the impact of the large traffic volume.
Ms. Higgins requested staff to talk with VDOT about the traffic impacts to help clarify some of the issues.
Mr. Benish stated that staff would do a summary of tonight's meeting and bring it back in two weeks to
obtain their consensus. Then staff will forward the Commission's comments to the Board of Supervisors
so that they will be aware of the information that you have provided to the applicant.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a worksession on Belvidere Preliminary Rezoning Request.
Staff presented several areas of concern and requested feedback from the Commission on any concerns
that they might have that the applicant should be considering when they come back for the rezoning
request. During this preliminary review process the Commission discussed the proposal and provided
comments and suggestions on the questions posed by staff to give the applicant an idea of what to
expect during the public process. The Commission took no formal action, but requested that staff obtain
information from VDOT regarding the traffic study, interconnections and other related traffic issues. Within
the next two weeks staff will schedule another worksession in order to follow up on the areas of concern.
Old Business:
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 22
New Business:
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to the January 20, 2004 meeting.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 13, 2004 23