HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 17 2007 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
April 17, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Pete Craddock, Duane Zobrist, Jon Cannon,
Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman was
absent. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; David E. Pennock, Principal
Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Director of
Zoning & Current Development; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Allan Shuck, Engineer; Elaine
Echols, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Moment of Silence
Ms. Joseph asked that everyone stand for a moment of silence in recognition of the Virginia
Tech tragedy.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Ms. Joseph invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There
being none, the meeting moved on to the next item.
Review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting - April 11, 2007
Mr. Benish summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on April 11, 2007.
Regular Items:
SDP 2005-083 Rio Truck Repair - Request for preliminary site plan approval to allow the
construction of an 8,000 square foot building to be used for truck repair on property described as
Tax Map 61 Parcel 146. The subject parcel contains approximately 1.428 acres and is zoned C1
(Commercial). This site is located at the end of Rio School Lane approximately 370 feet east of
its intersection with Rio Road (State Route 631). This site is located in the Rio Magisterial
District and is designated as Neighborhood Service in Urban Area 2. (David Pennock)
Mr. Pennock presented the staff report.
The preliminary site plan was submitted in 2005. One of the review comments
from staff is the requirement that the roadway serving the property be upgraded
to the standard of the ordinance, which is a 20' paved travel way with curb and
gutter on each side. The applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement.
The main justification is due to the inability to obtain necessary easements to
allow that construction to take place. Staff has been on site numerous times and
has met with the applicant and at various times has suggested some design
alternatives. The engineering analysis of the existing conditions is that there are
some drainage issues there that have caused some significant wash outs
occasionally topping over the road there. The existing condition of the roadway
is deteriorated partly as a result of that. In addition, there is parking along there
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 1
that is not very well defined. It goes from pavement to gravel and back again.
There are a lot of things going on there that staff feels would be improved with
the addition of the curb to more clearly define the roadway. But, it would also
more clearly direct the rain water and all of the drainage generated from at least
most of the construction of this site as well.
• The applicant in order to request this waiver also requested the review of the
whole site plan. As part of the site plan review the waiver comes into play.
There are two actions being requested. The first is the waiver of the standards
for the private street known as Rio School Lane. The other request is approval of
the preliminary site plan.
• Staff's analysis is that the existing conditions are inadequate to serve the uses
that are back there. The additional use generated by this construction would
exasperate problems that are already evident. Staff was unable to recommend
approval of the waiver requested. As a result staff was unable to recommend
approval of the preliminary site plan.
• Some of the neighbors have indicated that there is some storage of containers
on the property. Pictures of that were included in the emails. A zoning inspector
visited the site this week and the violation action should be pending on that.
The public hearing was opened and the applicant invited to address the Commission.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Corban Klug, attorney for van der Linde Homes. His
comments included the following:
■ The applicant is requesting a waiver from the zoning ordinance curbing
requirements. This road meets the minimum requirement for width of the travel isle
r, under the applicable zoning ordinance and VDOT requirements. That is it is 20' in
width. At this point there is also a curbing requirement that was for sometime
discretionary on the part of landowners and the County. Now it is mandatory. It was
amended to be mandatory only a few years back.
■ This commercial subdivision dates back to roughly 1960. It is a unique situation
because there are four existing parcels that once were one whole contiguous parcel.
Three of the parcels have been developed. One parcel has never been developed,
which is his client's parcel. For 40 years this parcel has essentially had residences
built that have been abandoned and been used by vagrants for illegal activities.
When his client bought the property a couple of years ago he was forced to clean
that up.
■ At this point he has been attempting to create on that parcel a permissive use under
the C-1, Commercial zoning ordinance. The applicant wants to build a truck repair
facility. It is lawful. The difficulty is because this subdivision was created when the
creators had no concept of zoning. It was at a time where there was no
understanding that 40 years later there would be a minimum travel isle width plus a
required curbing. They merely created a 20' travel isle by easement across the two
neighboring parcels. One property is owned by DeButts with a building and on the
other side the Church of Our Savior owns a thrift store. At the time this subdivision
was created these buildings were not in existence. There was no understanding at
that time what these parcels would be used for. Clearly there was no zoning
ordinance at that time.
■ This is an interesting situation. They have a zoning ordinance that was adopted 20
years after this subdivision was created. It was never in the mind of the subdivision
creators. It imposes a requirement that essentially blocks his client from using his
parcel. He says that with all of the legal gravity that he can. In reality the
Constitution of the United States and of Virginia requires that his client either be able
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 2
to use this parcel for some economically viable use or be compensated justly for
being deprived of that use.
`"r ■ The difficulty is that the curbing requirement adds 6" of width on either side of a
minimum 20' travel isle. Without an easement from both landowners and one
conceivably of a foot they cannot put curbing where the County requests it. His
client does not dispute that curbing generally is a wonderful requirement. It makes
sense. The Neighborhood Model and the Comprehensive Plan are sensible
statements of priority. They don't dispute them. They are, however, stuck between
the proverbial rock and hard place in this situation. They cannot go forth with a
permissible use to develop the property, which they have a right to develop, simply
because there is a regulation that generally is perfectly sensible for all new
developments and for those developments that existed prior to 1980 and the zoning
ordinance that have enough width. At this point, however, the adjoining property
owners have been unwilling to grant us any additional easement. They have been
attempting for the last 1 Y2 years to come up with an agreement. They actually about
1 Y2 years ago the attorney for the DeButts, Bud Treakle, told the Planning
Commission that an agreement had been reached for an easement. That has been
their understanding.
■ For the last 1 Y2 years they have been putting documents in front of them and they
have been unwilling to sign them. That is their prerogative under the law, but
unfortunately they have been dragged through what they feel is a grand waste of
time. So now they are back here because they have not been able to get an
easement from them. They have been denied even a temporary construction
easement from the Church that would prevent them if the County grants a waiver
they are unable to put in the curbing because they can't step foot on their parcel.
They are stuck with a situation where this parcel that lies at the end of Rio School
"""' Lane cannot use this parcel for anything. The C-1 zone allows a lot of different uses,
but because of the curbing requirement there is nothing that the applicant could do
without a waiver or without additional width.
■ They have a number of options here. Globally speaking this is not a problem that is
going to go away. This problem needs to be dealt with because his client needs to
be able to under the Constitution of the United States to be able to use his parcel for
some economically viable use. He cannot put a florist shop back there because any
additional vehicular traffic is going to require curbing. There is no room for curbing.
If the Planning Commission does not waive the curbing requirement, then the County
generally is going to be stuck in a very difficult situation. They have a waiver
opportunity here. The Commission could waive a requirement that would cause
some safety problem and some degradation to the surrounding neighboring parcels.
He wanted to argue that.
■ The last option they have is to sue on the basis of a taking. He has done the
research and he finds that it is a real colorful issue there as far as the regulatory
taking. They don't want to go there and want to work this out in a sensible way.
■ A waiver would be appropriate: There are two existing uses that are quasi -industrial,
on of which is very industrial. The existing use, Associated Steel, is a lawful
nonconforming use. They have an industrial park essentially back there. They
already drive tons of big trucks back there and park them. They have I -beams. The
difficulty of putting curbing in would be that these trucks would be constrained in way
that would make them have to park on the travel isle and obstruct vehicular traffic.
No matter what they would do at this point there is space on either side of the travel
isle that is used for parking and also for these trucks to maneuver. If the curbing
were put in these trucks for the existing uses, including R.E. Boggs, these trucks that
back in would not have room to maneuver. There is a problem there with the large
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007
trucks already. They assert that the trucks would be a problem both for the safety of
any traffic for any use back there. The existing uses would be impeded by curbing.
■ Moreover, the other option for the County that there really is space for this road to be
reoriented and be widened. But, it would require an imminent domain use. It require
condemning a little strip of property on the left side on the church side and also on
the Debutts side to reorient this road and allow his client to use this property. They
would have to take the matter to the Courts.
Applicant response to specific Commission questions:
■ The applicant acquired the property in 2005 with the knowledge that there had never
been a problem with the existing use.
■ The curbing requirement which they find limiting here was that in effect since 1980
as a discretionary requirement. The mandatory requirement predated the purchase
of the property.
■ The property is not supposed to be used now. There are pictures of containers on
site. He discussed that matter with the applicant and if there is a notice of violation
forthcoming they will make sure that whatever is there is cleaned up.
Public comment was invited.
James E. Treakle, Jr. "Bud", attorney representing Bill and Ann DeButts, presented a series of
photographs (12). (Attachment) They are here about concerns and the degree of use. They
are dealing with School House Lane, which is a 20' private road lane. His client owns the
property located on the right side going in. There are two commercial businesses or two offices.
At the street level below there is R.E Boggs, which is a heating and air conditioning business.
Then beyond his client's property to the left at the end of the road is where Associated Steel is
located. That is a grandfathered use. They are concerned about public safety under the
circumstances because they were talking about a heavy industrial use. One of the comments
they heard from part of the discussions, which they have been dealing with for the last 1 '/2
years, is as many as 10 trucks coming in and out in the morning and evening. That is 20 daily
trips for heavy commercial vehicles or basically semis. He presented a series of photographs.
The large trucks because of the necessity of making a wide turn if they are east bound on Rio
Road they swing around and come through the parking lot for his client's building. If they are
coming out they make a wide sweep to turn to the right because of a telephone pole. The
photos show that more than the existing 20' travel way is now being used by the existing trucks.
The second set of photos show a vehicle parked in a location that the large truck would have
struck if it had been there. The third set of photos shows 10 to 12 containers that are now being
stored on the property. Basically, they are concerned if they grant this waiver and they have 20
semi -tractor trailer loads going in on a daily basis they are putting our tenants and children who
play behind the School House Thrift Shop in jeopardy. This road was not designed for this
heavy of an industrial use. It is just a matter of safety. If they were coming in for some other
proposed use for some other site plan other than what they are proposing they might not be
here arguing. They are concerned that as a matter of public safety this waiver should not be
granted.
David Stoddart, Director of Church of Our Savior, said that they had not received notice about
this hearing. Therefore, he was present on short notice about this hearing with members of
their governing Board. He asked that the members of the Board stand in recognition. They are
strongly opposed to granting this waiver. They are the owners of the School House Thrift Shop.
The building was built in the 1800's. It is an important outreach ministry of their church. Every
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 4
day families use the thrift shop. Rio School Lane was never designed to be heavily used by
trucks. Associated Steel is not a truck repair business and does not bring in a heavy traffic of
trucks. They are very concerned about safety. The area behind the Thrift Shop is also used for
parking space for the Church. As they grow they are parking more people there and using that
back lot to access the Church. They are very concerned that this presents a hazardous
situation for the people who come to the Thrift Shop and the Church. Therefore, they ask that
the Commission decline this waiver.
Margaret Edwards, Senior Warden at Church of Our Savior agreed with Reverend Stoddart.
She presented photographs that illustrate the traffic situation. She reiterated that Mr. van der
Linde has every right to use his property. But, she did not think this use was compatible with
the owners on either side of the road way.
Gary Albert, the State Farm Agent for Ray Cauddell, said that they talked about the impact that
some of the trucks will have on the property in his office. There are three ladies who work his
office. There have been several times when they were scared to open the door of their car
because of some of the traffic and some of the larger trucks that come off the road. He also had
safety concerns for his customers who use the front parking lot. There are already monthly
accidents in this area resulting from the large vehicles turning at this intersection. It is a very
serious concern. His employees have serious safety concerns in trying to park their cars. Each
of his employees submitted an email today in opposition to the request. It is a safety issue and
they oppose increasing the number of large trucks in this area. It is not conducive for a safe
operation of this kind in this area.
Nan Massie, member of the Church of Our Savior, said that she was a volunteer at the School
House Thrift Shop and a concerned citizen of Albemarle County. She asked the Commission to
oppose the request for waiver. She asked that they respect the historical significance of the
little building that they work in. The building was built in the 1880's and was used for a
community school and then for a church until 1906. They would hate to see anything that would
encroach on this property. As indicated they are concerned about the safety of their customers
many of whom are there with small children. She took a picture this afternoon of a customer
with a 21 month old child. The heavy trucks using that narrow lane would create a safety
hazard to their customers. It would also create a hazard to the property to their building. It is an
old building that they have had to do some enforcement in the structures. But, those heavy
trucks are going to further cause damage to the actual foundation of their building. AS the
attorney mentioned the road is already in bad repair and increased truck traffic will just add to
that. They have to avoid the pot holes as they use the travel way.
The public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Schuck to address the engineering concerns about the curb and gutter
and why he felt that it was necessary there.
Allan Schuck, Engineer for Community Development, noted that he did the latest review. Mr.
Brooks did the first review when the project was reviewed last year. He is also available for any
questions or comments. The issue has been raised about curb and gutter and the safety issue.
First, they would not recommend from an engineering perspective to shorten the width
requirement from the required 20'. Obviously, they have heavy equipment and large truck traffic
existing. The new use would propose new heavy vehicles. So engineering even from a safe
and convenient access point would not recommend shortening the width requirement from the
required 20'. Curb and gutter is required in the urban areas. It was adopted by the County
mainly to assist with drainage issue to assist us with getting the urbanized areas to get the
drainage under control in many areas. What this plan shows is basically in the middle of Rio
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 5
Lane it goes from existing Rio Road down into a dip with a gradual upgrade where the Rio
'*4W School Lane wording is would be where the upgrade would go. Then it turns to the right. With
the use of curb and gutter it is very simple to control the drainage with this. They have drainage
come for both sides and put drop inlets on both sides and can pipe it out. They can easily
control that. They would be able to control any potential flooding issues. The other thing with
curb and gutter they do have vehicles that currently park along the sides of the buildings. So
there is more than the 20' access easement being use by the existing patrons and the people
who use the facilities. So by putting the curb and gutter in would potentially create a safer
environment for this lane because they were going to create a safe path for the vehicles to use.
So curb and gutter from that aspect would potentially lower the results of accidents because it
would limit the access to the existing buildings because they use them for parking on both sides
of the commercial buildings, for the Thrift Shop and the buildings to the south.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff thought that the current erosion problems would be stopped with the
installation of curb and gutter.
Mr. Schuck replied that there are some existing erosion problems. It has washed out with
recent storms. There is bare soil on the south side of the road where there is existing drainage
that washes down and creates gutters. There is a potential problem there right now with the
erosion control. This would help with that existing problem. There would be heavier run off if
the 20' was paved. It would potentially create more of a problem. With the raised section the
drainage would be taken off the 20' easement onto the adjacent property owners where they
were not able to get the easement.
Mr. Cannon said that he was opposed to the granting of the waiver based on what he heard and
read. He was opposed for the reasons that by granting the waiver they would subject folks in the
area to truck traffic, which there is evidence to show would be dangerous. In opposing this
waiver he would not be suggesting that there is no permissible use for this property. If it were
used that did not involve heavy trucks it might be more amenable to a different configuration for
the road then may be a waiver could be considered or may be folks to be in the position to
negotiate some expansion of the easement would be more inclined to do so. Given this
proposed use the waiver is ill advised. He did not think that the claim of taking is convincing
here given fact that the property is already being used apparently and that other uses might be
available if they were brought forward and developed by the applicant.
Mr. Strucko agreed with Mr. Cannon in not being in favor of granting this waiver. He did not see
a compelling reason to change the County standards here for safety and drainage issues as the
engineers stated earlier. That does not preclude the use of this property. Therefore, he would
not vote in favor of this waiver.
Mr. Zobrist agreed with Mr. Strucko and Mr. Cannon. Also, he did not think that the applicant
comes before the Commission with clean hands. He thought that the applicant was using that
for an illegal use. It is clear from the photographs that big trucks belong to applicant. He runs a
container business out of there. He recommended that the zoning department keep a close
watch on what he is doing.
Mr. Craddock asked if there is a violation being processed.
Ms. McCulley replied based on what staff heard from neighbors related to this item they went to
the site and found that containers are there. They also see that in the photographs provided.
.*Awl They find that is not a permitted use. Therefore, it is a violation and a notice of violation to the
owner is forthcoming.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007
Mr. Edgerton agreed that the waiver request should be denied.
Ms. Joseph noted that there is consensus with the Commission. She asked staff to write up a
decision for us after hearing everything that they have talked about and what staff has talked
about and bring it back to the Commission next week so they can have a formal motion and
vote on this with a written decision from staff.
Mr. Kamptner said that would be fine. If the applicant is willing he would request that they come
back in two weeks. He would like to further research the taking issue. Therefore, with
applicant's consent he would suggest that they bring it back in two weeks.
Mr. Corban Klug, attorney for van der Linde Homes, said that he would be out of the country in
two weeks. He asked that they move it back another week or two. He would be back in the
country on May 10. He asked if Mr. Kamptner would be submitting something in writing to the
Commission about those issues.
Mr. Kamptner replied that he would probably do so and would be happy to share it with him. He
asked that Mr. Klug provide copies of his research. He asked if they would have an opportunity
to comment on that.
Ms. Joseph replied that they would be able to comment on it.
Mr. Klug requested a deferral of the decision of the Planning Commission until after May 10.
Ms. Kamptner noted that for the public present the Commission should defer to a date specific.
Ms. Joseph noted that the date was set for May 22 at which time public comment will be taken.
Motion: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, to accept the applicant request for
deferral of SDP-2005-083, Rio Truck Repair, to May 22.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph said that SDP-2005-083, Rio Truck Repair, was deferred to May 22.
WPO 2006-048 Belvedere Rough Grading Plan - Request for a critical slope waiver in
conjunction with grading required for residential subdivision development within the area known
as Belvedere - Phase I, a 86.712 acre portion the 267 acre development known as Belvedere.
The property is zoned NMD, Neighborhood Model District. The property, described as Tax Map
61 Parcels 154, 157, 158, 160 (portion) and 161, Tax Map 62 Parcels 2A (portion) 3, 5, and 6A,
and Tax Map 62A3 Parcel 1, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on the east side of Rio
Road (Route 631) immediately east of the Southern Railroad. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the northern portion of the property (3 to 6
dwelling units per acre), Urban Density in the middle and southern portions (6 to 34 dwelling
units per acre), and Community Service adjacent to the railroad, in Neighborhood Two.
(Summer Frederick)
In the absence of Summer Frederick, Mr. Pennock summarized the staff report. (See Staff
Report.)
`` W Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 7
Chris Schooly, with Stonehaus Development, asked to take tonight as an opportunity to present
;,400, some components of Belvedere. He gave a power point presentation to refresh what they have
done. They will rest on condition 3 regarding reasons to approve the critical slopes waiver,
which will be to the overall community benefit. He explained proposed layout of the
development. As staff indicated all the critical slopes are not man made. On a technical note
there are less than 3 percent critical slopes in the plan.
Ms. Joseph invited public comment.
Kent Peterson, MD, resident of 1314 Dunlora Drive, noted that he had many questions about
the proposal since he lived adjacent to the area in discussion. He questioned the impacts of the
grading on the creek and the existing trees. He asked that the sensitivity be increased on
behalf of the residents of Dunlora and that more information be provided to the homeowners. In
the interest of the existing property owners he asked that they protect the water shed since they
feel that it is a treasure.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Schuck to address the grading plan. She noted that the creek Mr.
Peterson was referring to was Town Branch. It looks like there is a buffer designated on either
side of it.
Allan Shuck, Senior Engineer, said that currently there is a mass grading plan for block one.
The road plan is being reviewed with this waiver request. There are some stream buffers
proposed. He explained that the mass grading plan was in conjunction with the waiver request.
""' The mass grading plan will do all the grading for phase one and all the perimeter. It does not
show any tree planting or time intervals.
Mr. Cannon questioned if they could include a condition that must be here.
Mr. Schuck replied that conditions would affect the review of the plan that is currently under
review and on his desk.
Mr. Edgerton asked that they spend a few minutes reviewing the plan.
Mr. Schuck reviewed the plan. He suggested that they take into consideration what they want
to see at final site plan. Any conditions would need to indicate when the mass grading would
take place and where the trees would be taken out.
Ms. Joseph noted that it would either be now or at the site plan stage.
Mr. Strucko suggested that they summarize their concerns and how to go about fixing them.
Ms. Joseph noted concerns about the specific area adjacent to Town Branch which intrudes into
block one into the critical slopes. She would like to see some revegetation there that can be
done in the site plan stages.
Mr. Edgerton noted that they were not just asking for grass, but trees.
'`4*1 Ms. Joseph said that they wanted trees of a reasonable size of at least 1 '/2 "caliper.
Mr. Strucko said that they want to protect the integrity of Town Branch.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 17, 2007 8
Ms. Joseph said that the Commission would leave it up to staff to pick the caliper and type of
trees.
Mr. Strucko agreed with Ms. Joseph.
Mr. Schuck noted that this condition will affect the review of the mass grading plan, which is
currently being reviewed.
Ms. Joseph said that staff could apply the condition to the final site plan. They are assuming
that the mass grading means exactly that the 89 acres is going to be cleared.
Mr. Schuck replied that is correct. For this plan there is no phasing associated with this mass
grading plan. They are going to the limits of disturbance and they are putting perimeter control
measures in accordance with State law. Staff has not given final approval of the plan, but they
are very close to approval of it.
Ms. Joseph apologized for confusing the issue. She asked if the applicant had any suggestions
or comments at this point in time.
Chris Schooly replied that hopefully he had a compromise that might help us. He sees their
concern. The rest of Phase 2 of Belvedere has a wide variety of a number of small trees, which
is a little bit bigger than this. They are going to transplant some of those into the bio-filters.
They can compromise and say they will put 50 trees within 50' of either side of Town Run that
would be transplanted on site within the fall or spring after they begin construction. He asked if
that is a reasonable compromise.
Ms. Joseph replied yes, that is fine. They are sustainable and can add that to their list. The
condition for the critical slopes waiver request would read transplanting 50 trees that are two
fingers wide, 15' on center within the first planting season.
Motion: Mr. Cannon, Mr. Craddock, moved for approval of the critical slope waiver request of
Section 4.2.3 for WPO-2006-048, Belvedere Subdivision Phase 1 Rough Grading Plan with the
tree planting condition as stated by the applicant and rephrased by Ms. Joseph.
1. Applicant agrees to revegetate denuded areas within 50 feet of Town Branch creek by
transplanting at least 50 trees that are at least two fingers wide, to be planted 15 feet on
center within the first planting season, in addition to other required plantings for
purposes of stabilization of the site
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph said that WPO-2006-048, Phase 1 Belvedere Rough Grading Plan, was approved
with conditions.
SUB 2006-163 Lake Ridge - Request for approval of a preliminary plat to allow the creation of
104 lots (7 Rural Area lots and 97 Development Area lots). The property, described as Tax Map
78, Parcel 57, contains 252.72 acres zoned R-1 (Residential), RA (Rural Areas) and PRD
(Planned Residential Development), adjacent to the Franklin, Ashcroft West, Cascadia, and
Fontana subdivisions. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial, with proposed access
from Fontana Drive [Route #1765]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as, in
part, Neighborhood Density in Development Areas Neighborhood 3 and, in part, Rural Areas in
Rural Area 1. (David Pennock)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 9
Mr. Pennock summarized the site plan and gave a power point presentation. (See Staff Report.)
• Staff finds that this request is consistent with the criteria presented in the Subdivision
and Zoning Ordinance. If the waivers and modifications as requested are granted, the
current layout appears to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Thus, staff
recommends approval to the Commission of the preliminary subdivision plat and waivers
with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Keith Lancaster, representative for the applicant, clarified the tree preservation. The tree
preservation area has additional plantings in that area as open space. There have been a few
major changes made to the plan since the last meeting. They have redone the streets to meet
the Neighborhood Model 6" sidewalks and planting strips. They have met the recommended
VDOT distance. They have met with Dan Mahone about the trail system and are working to link
the trail system. They are working with the Service Authority in regards to the infrastructure on
Pantops. They are proposing a parallel line that will come down to a 12" main that will be below
the water tower tank in Ashcroft. It will be served by 2 main lines and that is an issue. It will help
upgrade the network system. That is a recommendation that they made to us and they are
willing to work on it. It will help with the water pressure and the overall quality of the system.
They are also implementing measures for storm water management and grading planting for
sheet run off before it hits the ponds. They are also implementing bio swales and piping to
shorten it back 200' for bio swales for water quality and quantity. They have worked with the
engineering staff and tried to work out the tree protection issues. They are proposing a buffer to
the tree preservation area and will show that on the plan as wall. They have gone to the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority and agreed to help mitigate the impact of this site. All of the
exterior lighting will meet the Dark Sky regulations and be down lighted. Kat Imhoff came and
spoke to us about the view shed from Monticello. They are willing to accept staff's
recommendations.
Ms. Joseph invited public comment.
Ken Webster, resident of Fontana, asked the Commission to approve the proposal. He has
spoken to the developer over the past year and liked the current plan.
There being Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton thanked the applicant for working so hard in trying to respond to the concerns
expressed earlier. This is an example of an applicant who has listened hard to some of the
Commission's concerns in former meetings and has responded directly to them.
Mr. Strucko and Mr. Zobrist agreed.
Ms. Joseph noted that normally she would be fussing about the 12' high retaining wall. But,
what they were trying to do was preserve more trees in that area. So there is a purpose behind
that 12' wall.
Mr. Lancaster noted that they agree that they would stagger that. He noted that in the City they
are currently on a project using a green retaining wall that actually interlocks and then it planted
so that it looks like a steep hill instead of that ready rock. It does soften the appearance, which
will be facing the tree preservation area and the trail system. That faces the Moore's Creek
Trail System on the site in the City. He will bring photographs for the Commission to review.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 10
Ms. Joseph said that she appreciated the applicant working with the neighbors. It was very
impressive to see all of the positive letters.
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to accept the staff recommendation to
approve the preliminary subdivision plat, the critical slope waiver and the open space waiver for
SUB-2006-163, Lake Ridge subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
1. The provided conceptual overlot grading plan does not show the required disturbed area
needed for the required E&SC basins, especially the area to the west of Lots 1-6. The
final E&SC and SWM plans need to address this concern on the final plans to the
satisfaction of County staff.
2. The retaining wall located at Lots 57 and 58 must be staggered as two or three walls in
series as opposed to one 12' retaining to provide a safer rear yard area to these lots.
These walls are to be built within the proposed limits of clearing and grading
3. Current Development Engineer approval to include review of all applicable items as
specified in the Design Standards Manual, as well as:
4. The applicant needs to provide SWM facilities at the rear of Lots 1-6.The locations of the
SWM facilities need to be as far removed as possible from the buildable area of each
residential lot.
5. Written VDOT approval of the proposed street design is required.
6. The land shown on the preliminary plat as PRD and Residue is not included in this
approval.
7. A conservation plan checklist must be completed and incorporated into the site plan with
notes to show how any individual trees and groups of trees designated to remain will be
protected during the construction of this project. The location of any tree protection
fencing that coincides with the limits of clearing and other methods of protection from the
checklist must be shown on the plan for clear identification during field inspections.
8. Fire and Rescue Department approval is subject to field inspection and verification.
9. All accesses and roadways shall be designed in accordance with the current Subdivision
Street Standards, The Minimum Standards for Entrances to State Highways and the
Road Design Manual through the Virginia Department of Transportation.
10. Current Development Planner approval of final computation for density bonus. Bonus
amounts to be listed on the final plat.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Mr. Joseph stated that SUB-2006-163, Lake Ridge, was approved.
The Commission took a break at 7:48 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:59 p.m.
ZMA 2004-00018 Fontana Phase 4C (Signs #37, 45)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 17.146 acres from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre), R-4 Residential zoning district (4 units/acre) and
R-1 Residential zoning district (1 unit/acre) to R-4 Residential zoning district which allows
residential uses at 4 units per acre for 34 dwelling units at a gross density of 1.98 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential
- (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-
scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 3 — Pantops.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 11
LOCATION: At the intersection of Fontana Drive (Rt. 1765) and Via Florence approximately 0.5
miles from the intersection of Fontana Drive and Stony Point Road (Route 20 North).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78E-A.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
STAFF: Elaine Echols
Ms. Echols summarized the staff report and presented a staff report.
• This request was accepted for processing less than the normal time. As a result there
was a lot of exchange between the applicant and staff. Therefore, all of the corrections
that needed to be made to the staff report after the final check with the applicant were
not included.
• The critical slopes waiver attachment dated 4-17-07 was distributed tonight. The staff
report says that it was requested, but staff omitted it from the final packet of information.
• Staff has done an analysis for the Commission's consideration. But, staff does not want
the Commission to feel pressured to do it tonight. If the Commission does not feel that
they can process this request, staff can bring the request back at a later time. If the
Commission feels comfortable, staff recommends approval.
• On page 5, the report indicates that the owner agrees with the County's cross section for
Fontana Drive and later in the report it contradicts it. It is otherwise since there is a
waiver requested.
• Although staff has requested additional comments from the Service Authority, they have
not given additional comments. The original comments stand that the water and sewage
that is out there is adequate. But, staff has not gotten any further information.
• In August of 2006 the Commission received a deferral request from the applicant.
• Fontana 4C is the last phase of Fontana, which is located in the Pantops area east of
Route 20 and north of Richmond Road, Route 250. It is adjacent to Lake Ridge. This is
a rezoning from RA, R-1 and R-4 to R-4 with a proffered plan and proffered. It is a
proposal for 34 single-family lots on 15.471 acres. It is slightly less than 2 units per acre
and adjacent to the existing phases of Fontana. Public streets are proposed. Fifteen
percent of affordable housing in the form of cash for five (5) units is proposed. For the
CIP $3,000 per unit has been proffered.
• The connecting road is Fontana Drive. This is coming in with 2 pieces. The piece to the
far right contains 2 proposed cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sac to the north contains a
number of lots. Then there are some existing lots and undeveloped parcels on the Via
Florence that are also proposed to be included. It is heavily wooded and has steep
topography.
• A portion of the property was zoned R-4 in 1994. The property zoned R-1 was
left for future rezoning. The property zoned RA was left until the property could
be served by public water. There was a preliminary plat approved for Fontana in
1997, which has expired. The preliminary plat included this area for 9 lots. Now
the applicant would like to get it rezoned and get 34 lots. Water service has
improved since that original approval of the preliminary plat and from the
rezoning. There have been several rezoning applications that have been
reviewed. A staff report was distributed in August, 2006. The applicant has been
working with staff fairly regularly since then to try to bring this project to
completion.
There are proffers submitted with the plan.
• Proffer 1: Conformity with Plans — The applicant is proffering the rezoning
plan. This proffer is appropriate and will need to be updated with the last revised
version of the rezoning plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 12
• Proffer 2: Final grading plan: An overlot grading plan is proffered which is
acceptable to staff.
Proffer 3: Affordable Housing: The applicant is proffering to provide cash in
lieu of affordable housing units which is acceptable to the Housing Director.
Although the proffer is not written correctly, the applicant has indicated he will be
providing $2427 per unit which equals which is equal to $16,500 for 5 units (15%
of the total units proposed). The Housing Director believes that it would be more
advantageous to the County if half of the money was provided up -front at the
time of building permit and the other half when the 161h unit is permitted;
however, it is acceptable as proffered.
• Proffer 5: Trees: As indicated in Attachment F, a prior proffer required that five
trees per lot with approximately ten trees per acre be provided or retained on all
lot designated areas on the final plan. The purpose of this proffer is to try to
provide for visual buffering from Monticello by retaining or replanting trees. It is
acceptable.
Proffer 6: Pedestrian Paths: The owner has indicated he will build the
pedestrian paths shown on the rezoning plan according to standards in the
Design Standards Manual. The proffer says that the owner will not request a
building permit for the 9th house until the paths are completed to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Department of Community Development. This proffer will need
to be wordsmithed; however, it is generally acceptable.
• Proffer 7: Cash Proffer: The owner is proffering $3000 per unit for 34 units for
parks, fire, rescue and police. The proffer value would be $102,000.
• There is a proffer that the applicant will not make application for grading in 4C
until improvements in phases 1, 2, 3 and 4A are completed.
• There are some outstanding engineering issues that keep staff from
recommending approving. There is a drainage issue that the County Engineer,
Glenn Brooks, will speak to that needs to be addressed. That is in an area that is
off site from the proposed rezoning, but in Fontana itself.
• There is another issue related to bonds. Outstanding improvements are needed.
Proffers for phases 1, 2, 3 and 4A say that the applicant will not do any additional
grading until he has completed all of those improvements, which includes the
pedestrian paths as well as other improvements. Phase 4B has not been
proffered to be completed. The applicant has said that the lots have been sold to
another builder and the bond is still being held in the owner's name.
• The Fontana Drive cross section is an extension to Lake Ridge. The County standard
section is curb and gutter, sidewalks on both sides of the street and a planting strip for
street trees. The applicant has requested at Fontana Drive that curb and gutter,
sidewalk and street trees be on the east side only and a rural section be on the west
side. The applicant's justification for that request is in the staff report. Again, the County
Engineer can speak on that issue more.
• Staff is recommending several waivers on this rezoning.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 13
WAIVERS
With this development, the applicant is requesting waivers for curb and gutter, sidewalk and
street trees on two short cul-de-sacs and curb and gutter and sidewalks on one side of Fontana
Drive. The applicant is also asking that the interconnections to the south and to the north be the
only required interconnections.
Waiver to Section 14-409 for interconnections:
Waiver to Section 14-410 for curb and gutter for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane and one
half of Fontana Drive.
Waiver to Section 14-422 of the Subdivision Ordinance for sidewalks. The applicant has
asked for a waiver to provide an asphalt path on one side of the street instead of sidewalks on
both sides of the street for Belluno Lane and no sidewalks on Cortina Way. The applicant has
proposed a sidewalk on the east side of Fontana Drive only.
Waivers to Section 14-422 D of the Subdivision Ordinance for planting strips are
requested in for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane. The following analysis is provided for both
areas on the plan:
If the engineering issues can be resolved staff can recommend approval of the rezoning
with the following changes:
• The application plan be modified to reflect the same not that exists on the Cascadia plan
for right-of-way dedication and construction of emergency access way and pedestrian
path. The applicant has agreed to do this, but needs to be noted on the plan.
• The proffers need to be corrected to remove the emergency access proffer.
• The ADU amount needs to be corrected and remove the slope protection proffer.
• The proffers need to be worded to meet legal requirements. The applicant has agreed
to make proffer changes requested by the County Attorney's office.
Staff has reviewed the critical slopes waiver request. The County Engineer has made an
analysis of it. When building on steep terrain, as with Lake Ridge, there is just not way to do
density and protect all of the slopes. The measure generally used for whether or not slopes
should be disturbed relates to the open space plan. If there are systems of critical slopes that
are shown on the open space plan or relate to a stream buffer they want to protect those.
Where they have other bands of critical slopes, staff is not as worried about them in the
development areas. For the sake of density in the development areas they can recommend
approval of the critical slopes waiver. There is a proffer for an overlot grading plan, which
should help with the re -grading of the lots.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Ms. Echols. There being none, the public
hearing was opened and the applicant invited to address the Commission.
Steve Driver, of Terra Engineering and Land Solutions and representative for the applicant, said
for the last three years they have been working towards getting approval for the final phase for
Fontana. Based on the staff report there are three areas that require some discussion tonight.
• Regarding the storm water issue, the 11 lots to the east are draining Via Florence down
%W to a natural ditch that goes into a storm water management basin located in the Luxor
development. This has been discussed with the applicant and Glenn Brooks. The
applicant has agreed to extend the storm drain, which currently stops at the end of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 17, 2007 14
cul-de-sac on Via Florence. He has agreed to extend the pipe from the end of Via
Florence down to the rear of the two lots, 96 and 97. That should handle and address
the outstanding drainage concern.
The other issue concerned completing phase 4B construction prior to approval of the
grading plan for phase 4C. That phase has been sold to Hauser Homes. All of the
general construction work has been completed. The infrastructure is in place, which
includes the sewer and water lines, ditches, the road section and so forth. All that
remains to be done in that phase is to build the homes. That is beyond the control of the
applicant. So he would ask to be relieved of having to complete that phase as a
condition of Phase 4C approval.
The third issue deals with the typical section on Fontana Drive Extended. All of Fontana
was originally designed in 1997 and Fontana Drive specifically was designed to be
extended into Lake Ridge in the future. There was a provision for that. Several lots
have been platted and have been sold along the corridor road, specifically lot 120. Lot
112 would be the immediate lot to the right where the new road would begin. Then
behind lot 112 would be lot 113. Further to the rear would be lot 118 where the applicant
currently resides. All of these 4 lots were platted and sold based on the original road
way and right-of-way section that was proposed and approved in 1997. That right-of-
way was intended to be 50' wide with a rural section. The problem with providing a full
section in accordance with the current standards is that the right-of-way width between
lots 112 and 120 is 50' wide. The right-of-way width proposed with the Lake Ridge plan
is 54' wide. That includes curb and gutter, a 6' planting strip and a 5' sidewalk. So that
is an issue that needs to be discussed. It appears that a waiver will be required of some
sort to this current standard section.
The applicant would also request the Planning Commission's consideration of not
requiring curb and gutter on the west side of Fontana Drive. The length of road between
Verona Drive and the first intersection in Lake Ridge is about 1,100'. Along that section
of road there will never be more than 2 lots that front along that 1,100'. It does not seem
to be a need for a sidewalk on that side. That is something that the applicant would like
the Commission to take into consideration in addition to the problem with fitting the right-
of-way within the 50' width between lots 120 and 112. Beyond that a wider right-of-way
section could be provided. However, it would be necessary to have variable width right-
of-way 54' or wider because the mathematically there are not tangent sections in the
alignment. It is all a series of horizontal curves. So it is not possible to fit a 54' right-of-
way in a 50' designated area for previously platted lots without providing for a variable
right-of-way. It would affect to a minor extent the alignment in Lake Ridge if they use the
typical section proposed. The applicant has met with the Lake Ridge developer who
indicated that the alignment is not a major issue for them and the mathematical
alignment is something they can accommodate within Lake Ridge.
The applicant has agreed to allow the connection to Cascadia to the same condition that
the Planning Commission recommended for approval for that development. That would
be providing the right-of-way and also grading that road in so it could be used as an
emergency and pedestrian connection.
Some of the requests from staff regarding the proffer revisions have been completed. A
note has been added to the rezoning plan in regards to the Cascadia connection. So a
lot of these revisions have been made. They do not see any problems in resolving any
remaining issues to move the project forward.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Driver. There being none, public
comment was invited.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 15
Ken Webster said generally he was in favor of the request. But, after reviewing the details he
had one concern. Proffer 9 in the handout says that the owner shall not submit application for
erosion and sediment control until all improvements in phase 1, 2, 3 and 4A for Fontana have
been completed. He was concerned with the removal of 4B from this. Phase 4B does provide
some pedestrian paths. The Home Owners Association would want to be assured that any
public space, a walking trail or land that would eventually be turned over to the Fontana Home
Owners Association as common area would be taken care of. The 4B properties already sold
should not be a reason for the applicant not to be obligated to complete the public space
requirements for 4B.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Joseph invited Mr.
Driver to address Mr. Webster's concern.
Mr. Driver noted that the pedestrian paths are part of the phase 4B site plan requirements. A
bond is in place for construction of the pedestrian paths. It is the applicant's intent to complete
those. It is the applicant's obligation to do so as part of 4B construction.
Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Brooks to address some engineering concern. In looking at the urban
section the applicant has estimated that it takes 53' to do this 12' wide and then 2.5' for curb
and gutter with a 6' planting strip and 5' for the sidewalk. Then there is another foot, which she
was not sure what that means. She asked what the other foot was for on the end past the
sidewalk.
Mr. Brooks replied that it is usually '/2' on either side. If VDOT is going to accept the sidewalk
for maintenance they want to have a little more area than just the edge of pavement.
Ms. Joseph asked if there is a way they could fit the urban section within a 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Brooks replied that it was, but the area is a very narrow constriction right at the intersection
where this property comes in. The applicant does not own one piece of property. It is a 10' or
15' length of road and at that point the planting strip would be narrowed a bit. It is only in an
area of 2' to 3'. There are 6' planting strips on either side of the road and it could all be fit in.
Ms. Joseph noted that they could do that within the planting strips. Therefore, there would not
be a tree at the intersection, which is probably not a bad thing anyway.
Mr. Brooks noted that the applicant might not be permitted a tree there for sight distance
purposes anyway.
Mr. Zobrist said that he got the impression that it would not match up.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that there is no sidewalk on the Fontana development. So it ends at that
intersection. There is a sidewalk on the new road that ends at the intersection. He pointed out
on the slides that past this point everything will match up. Before that point there is an existing
rural section road with no sidewalk and just ditches.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the sidewalk would just end at that point, and Mr. Brooks replied that was
correct.
Mr. Strucko said that was a source of his concern with this proposal. The Commission
err considered Fontana as a subdivision when they looked at the Cascadia rezoning. They heard
and agreed conceptually that Fontana Drive in that rural cross section is simply inadequate for
the existing traffic on it now, and they just added 138 units with Lake Ridge. Now they are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 16
cm
considering adding 34 units with this request. The reason it was inadequate was that it was not
wide enough and did not have sidewalks for all of the pedestrians and children and families that
live along there. This is the same developer that developed Fontana. He was inclined not to be
in favor of this along the grounds that he was not seeing any jester for improvements of Fontana
Drive to handle those inadequacies. Fontana is going to be connected to other developments
through Verona and Olympia Drive as well. So he was hoping that at least when they were
looking at a rezoning in this area that there would be some suggestion for improvement to
Fontana Drive to make it less dangerous and he did not see any of that here. He liked what
Lake Ridge did by holding that road standard to avoid the same dangerous conditions that
Fontana currently faces internally so that internally within Lake Ridge pedestrians can move
around safely. But, they are still sitting with the circumstance of this rural cross section road in
Fontana. There is nothing listed in the proffers that address that issue.
Mr. Edgerton concurred with Mr. Strucko's comments. He had been struggling with the request
and was surprised with staff's recommendation. He did not see any value in what had been
proposed to the community. If he read the staff report carefully enough it appears that
previously this residue property was designated as open space. That plan has expired. It was
designated as open space because of water concerns. There is also a significant concern
about the elevation and its impact on the community at large. He was looking for some
argument for increasing density. At 34 units they are getting less than 2 units per acre overall.
They have held firm with good reason by requiring other projects to meet current ordinance for
urban cross sections and he did not see any reason to make an exception here. He remained a
little confused about the factor unfavorable #5. In staff's report it says although the bonds are
being held in the applicant's name the applicant has not agreed to complete all of the
improvements in phase 4B before beginning phase 4C because he has sold the lots in phase
4B and no longer controls the ownership. He did not understand how that legal responsibility
disappeared when he sold the property. Personally, he thought that this is a case where not
granting a rezoning would be in the best interest of the County. Therefore, he could not support
this request
Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Edgerton's concerns about proffer 9 about basically just walking
away from some obligations in there. He questioned if this is another phase or was this
designated open space.
Ms. Echols replied that a portion of it was designated as open space. There was an area zoned
RA that was designated as open space, but it was not intended to be permanent open space. A
small portion of it was open space on the plan because there was really not much else they
could do with it at the time. There were no open space requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance for the residential districts. There was only a very small portion of R-4. They really
could not develop it under R-4 zoning because it was such a narrow piece. It was not all open
space and was shown for 9 lots on the original preliminary plat.
Mr. Craddock said that there were comments on page 5 about Monticello and the view shed.
He questioned if the view shed requirements would be in effect now. The view shed was not
part of the prior approval.
Ms. Echols replied that the design standards are recommendations and requests from
Monticello and not requirements. The tree proffers is a result of the concerns for the view shed,
but the applicant did not proffer any architecture. If it is something that the Commission feels
should be included for the 34 lots, then that is something that could be requested.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 17
Mr. Craddock said that he was not sold on the subdivision. But, with this being up as high as it
, * is he would suspect that at least in Monticello's view shed that it should be in with their color
suggestions.
Mr. Cannon said that this is a patch work of different zonings at present. He asked if the
request is to rezone to R-4.
Ms. Echols replied that is correct.
Mr. Cannon asked what would be the maximum density achieved under the existing zoning.
Ms. Echols replied that theoretically according to acreage they could get 34 lots. Realistically
they can't get that many lots because the way the road system is currently laid out. The
applicant has said they could not get more than 9 lots on it right now under the existing zoning.
Mr. Cannon asked if the original 9 lot proposal was the maximum that could practically be
achieved under the existing zoning, and Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Cannon asked in addition to the density through this rezoning what else would they be
getting.
Ms. Echols replied that they would get $3,000 per unit, excluding the affordable units, for the
equivalent of 15% affordable with 5 units with cash.
Ms. Joseph noted that the cash is not $16,500, which is what they normally get.
*MW Ms. Echols replied that it is. It is just the way it is stated. They are saying $2,475 per unit for
the 34, which ends up being exactly the same as $16,500. The applicant just stated it a little bit
differently. The applicant is meeting the 15 percent.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant is not going to build affordable unit, but were just giving cash
Ms. Echols replied that is correct. That is something that Ron White has said he believes is
acceptable with this small subdivision.
Mr. Cannon asked if the applicant has considered the issue of Fontana Drive in how the current
Fontana exists, what its limitations are, how that would relate to the new portion to be
constructed and whether there would be a possibility for improving some past portions.
Ms. Echols replied that has not been a subject of consideration. There was no indication from
VDOT that was something that was needed. Mr. Brooks may want to speak more on that. But,
going back and retro-fitting a road can be very difficult.
Mr. Cannon asked if all of this is in the growth area, and Ms. Echols replied yes
Mr. Brooks said that it has not been a topic. It came up at a previous Commission meeting
where the Fontana residents brought up the issue of feeling safe and having a place to walk on
the road. VDOT is only looking at whether it is a servable road for cars and does it get them
through quickly.
Ms. Joseph noted that it is supposed to be multi -modal.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 18
Mr. Brooks said that particular road and subdivision was approved 10 years ago. With the size
of the rezoning staff put some practical limits on how far off the property they go asking for
improvements for existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Zobrist said that he was absent at the Cascadia discussion, but was swayed by the problem
with Fontana Drive. If they can't get the road fixed, perhaps the developer should build their 9
houses and be on their way.
Mr. Brooks said that he was here when the original Fontana Subdivision was approved in 1997.
In 1997 there was a big debate on whether to provide curb and gutter for that subdivision. It
was not a mandatory part of the ordinance as they have heard in earlier topics. The ditch
section won out at that time 10 years ago.
Mr. Zobrist said that his issue is that it is probably not fixable to develop at this density even
thought they would like to see the density in that area. He suggested that they leave the
community looking half way decent and not mess it up.
Ms. Joseph said that the reason they are doing this is because it is single family and it is difficult
to build the units for single family unless you build something small. But, it would be really nice
if they would build something small. She felt that they need to have sidewalks out there. They
need to have the drainage work properly and not cause problems in the future. Therefore, she
cannot support the request at this point.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that the request be denied.
Ms. Joseph asked if the applicant was interested in any sort of deferral at this point or do they
want to move forward.
Mr. Driver declined to defer the project. The applicant would like to move forward to the Board
of Supervisors. If the only issue is that of the road section on Fontana Drive, he believed that
the owner would be willing to put curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees on both sides of
Fontana. But, a waiver would still be necessary to vary the planting strip where it connects to
the top of the hill.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant would be interested in improving Fontana Drive as
suggested.
Mr. Driver replied that he can't speak to that. That question has not been raised before for the
existing Fontana Drive.
Mr. Edgerton noted that it has been discussed before.
Mr. Driver felt that might be a question for Mr. Brooks because he did not know if that would be
a possibility at this point.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he would not suggest that it would be easy. It would require some
effort. He asked if he understands the concern there.
Mr. Cannon asked Mr. Driver if he would be willing to take a deferral to consider that possibility
Mr. Driver replied that he was speaking on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, he was not in a
position where he can say whether he would want to do that or not. He may choose just to
develop it by right if this is not approval by the Board of Supervisors and just go with the 9 units.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 17, 2007 19
He was just speculating. But, he felt that he would be willing to make the section of Fontana
Drive to the Lake Ridge property consistent with what Lake Ridge is doing with the exception of
where he can't do that because of the right-of-way limitations.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the applicant had said no.
Mr. Cannon said that he hates to give up possible additional density here because every lot they
don't put in the growth area they were eventually putting somewhere else where they don't now
want it. There seems to be consensus that there are existing infrastructure problems that make
the density really not desirable or on balance here. Based on that unless the applicants were
willing to defer to consider that further, he would be opposed to the rezoning.
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to deny the application for ZMA-2004-00018,
Fontana Phase 4C due to the unfavorable factors listed in the staff report.
In summary, the Planning Commission expressed concern that the owner was not
appropriately mitigating impacts. In particular, the following issues were discussed:
1. Fontana Drive is not sufficiently wide nor does it have sidewalks or paths, to support the
additional traffic of Cascadia and Fontana Phase 4C. To add more lots would be to place
more pressure on a street that the residents in Fontana feel is inadequate now. Fontana
Drive should be upgraded where it is currently a rural section.
2. Curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees are needed on both sides of Fontana Drive.
3. Architectural standards should be included with the project in keeping with the Monticello
Design Guidelines.
4. A commitment to complete improvements in Fontana Phase 4b prior to beginning grading for
Fontana Phase 4c is needed.
5. Drainage improvements at the end of Via Florence are needed, in keeping with the
recommendations of the County Engineer.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph said that ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C will go before the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for denial on July 18.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that there are a number of waiver requests. The Commission could
make a motion to deny the waivers because they are related to a plan that the Commission has
recommended for denial.
Ms. Joseph noted that the waivers are described on page 19.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, to deny the waiver requests as listed on
page 19 of the staff report for ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C, including the critical slope
waiver request.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Echols asked for one piece of clarification on their original action. The Commission said
that for the factors unfavorable that were listed in the staff report. One of the things that the
Commission mentioned, which was not included in that, was off site improvements to Fontana
Drive. She asked if those were intended to be part of that motion.
Amended Motion for Clarification:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 20
Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to amend the motion to deny the application for ZMA-
2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C to include the traffic conditions that have been pointed out to
the Commission on previous occasions as not being addressed in this report that needs to be
addressed in order for it to be further considered along with the unfavorable factors listed in the
staff report.
1. The "form" is not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model; however, it is similar to the
previously approved Fontana subdivision and is the last phase of that development.
2. The density is not in keeping with the Land Use Plan, but, it is similar to the previously
approved subdivision and is the last phase of the development.
3. Curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the west side Fontana Drive extended are not proposed.
4. Off -site drainage improvements in the developed part of Fontana are not appropriately
provided to deal with run-off from this new section.
5. Although bonds are being held in the applicant's name, the applicant has not agreed to
complete all improvements in Phase 4B before beginning on Phase 4C because he has
sold the lots in Phase 4B to a builder and no longer controls the ownership.
Traffic conditions on Fontana Drive have not been addressed.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C, would go before the Board of
Supervisors on July 11, 2007 with a recommendation for denial. The motion was made to deny
the rezoning because curb, gutter, sidewalk and street trees were not proposed on both sides of
Fontana Drive, off -site drainage improvements were not appropriately provided, there were no
commitments to finish Phase 4b of the development before beginning Phase 4c, and traffic
conditions on Fontana Drive had not been addressed. None of the waivers was granted
because the rezoning was not supported.
SP 2007-00009 Little Keswick School Amendment (Signs #101, 102)
PROPOSED: Amend SP 06-13 to increase the size of the New Dorm from 45' X 90' to 56'8" X
100'. No additional students or staff would result.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre).
SECTION: 10.2.2(5) Private School.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 505 Little Keswick Lane; Rt. 731 1/10th of a mile SE
of Rt. 22.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 80 Parcels 110, 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, 119.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
STAFF: Joan McDowell
Ms. McDowell summarized the staff report.
• A special use permit was approved last year to allow the relocation of a dorm to an
existing dorm for offices and storage. The applicant has requested a modification of a
condition of approval for that application to allow additional square footage for the new
dorm due to changes in the architecture. In its approval the Board of Supervisors
increased the enrollment from 31 to 35 students. The dorms increased square footage
would not cause a further increase in students or staff. The new dorm would have
limited visibility from Keswick Road, the nearest public road. The height would not be
affected.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 21
Staff's opinion is that amending the square footage from the condition would allow some
flexibility for minor changes in the future should they occur without compromising the
findings of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of SP-
2007-09 subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report.
• Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed square footage increase would not increase traffic.
2. The increase in square footage would not adversely impact visibility from neighboring
properties.
• Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
There being no questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
Mark Columbus, Head Master of Little Keswick School, thanked staff for helping them to push
this minor change through to allow them to get before the Board. They already had a builder in
line upon the first approval. When these minor changes were made it set back the building
process. The minor change as indicated is as indicated that after approval of the first one is
simply a dorm located in this area that originally had the dimensions of 45' X 95'. His
understanding is that when looking at the modifications and the architectural plan that fits the
boys of the school it came out to be 56'8" by 100'. So the concept plan now shows that, which
is indicated by the change of the new dorm. That is the only change that they have made to the
Little Keswick School Concept Plan.
Public comment was opened. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Columbus to come back to address a question concerning an email
received by the Commission from Mr. Rintel who lives next door. She also received a phone
call from Mr. Rintel.
Mr. Columbus noted that since the Commission received that email that he had talked to John
Rintel. He used to be the President of the Foundation of their School. So they have good
relationships with them. Some of the things that they talked about were visually providing some
Leyland Cyprus to provide a buffer. They have already planted some Spruce trees along this
line. Another property that they have is in back of the soccer field and for their view and
protection they have already planted Leyland Cyprus. Their plan is to certainly work with John
Rintel and provide a buffer there. Although, if you look at the visual height of the building this
sets down a good 40 '. So the actual profile of the building is very low. It is lower than the
actual gymnasium. With the Leyland Cyprus and the Spruce that they have already planted it
will give adequate protection.
Ms. Joseph noted that Mr. Rintel was saying something about the soccer field, too.
Mr. Columbus noted that there are some existing Pine trees along this drive. It is sort of a right-
of-way. Mr. Rintel has put up a lattice fence there. They would be happy to plant some Spruce
or Leyland Cyprus.
Ms. Joseph asked if he could accept as a condition of approval some screening trees being
planted between the school and the adjacent neighbor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 22
Mr. Columbus replied yes, that they can. They have already had an arborist that has planted
some trees along there. They certainly can plan some trees.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Cannon moved for approval of SP-2007-00009, Little Keswick
School Amendment, with that additional condition of screen plantings.
Ms. Joseph asked staff if that was specific enough.
Ms. McDowell suggested Leyland Cyprus.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to figure out the type of species to be used. She asked if staff wants
spacing. She suggested that staff allow the applicant to figure out what he can buy at a good
price that will work in that location. She asked staff to suggest the size and spacing.
Ms. McDowell replied that she had also talked with the adjacent neighbor. He is interested in
some screening to be provided as quickly as it can grow. She suggested starting off with
something around 3' to 4' tall and she would leave it up to the Commission as to how close they
should be.
Ms. Joseph asked that the trees be 15' on center.
Mr. Benish asked if the intent is to block the view with the vegetation.
Ms. McDowell replied yes.
Ms. Joseph suggested planting the trees 15' on center in a double staggered row.
Mr. Benish noted that it would depend on the species. So maybe the intent of creating that sort
of obscured view is what the Commission needs to identify such as planting Leyland Cyprus,
White Pines, etc.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to work out that condition before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Benish replied yes, if the Commission could just direct staff to do that and meet that intent
they will provide something.
Mr. Strucko asked staff to provide the language of that condition.
Mr. Craddock asked if they wanted the screening down that side and also to make the turn at
the soccer field.
Amended Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve SP-2007-009, Little
Keswick School Amendment, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended, to
provide language of that condition concerning screening to be worked out by staff prior to the
Board of Supervisors hearing. (includes SP 06-13, as approved, with strikethroughs to delete
reference to exact size and underlines for new information).
1. Special Use Permit 2006-13 2007-09 shall be limited to the GORG#wGtion use of a
maximum two-story ' residential facility the "New Dorm" for students
enrolled in the Little Keswick School and for the conversion of the existing "Barn
Dorm" to non-residential uses, such as office, recreational, storage, meeting area,
or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 23
accord with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan"
(Attachment A.) and dated iURe22, 20 February 16, 2007 (last revision date) the
"Concept Plan' ). However, the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the e
Concept p Plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in
enrollment shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require
entrance improvements subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements.
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall
be subject to review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to
any other use.
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of the
SPGGial use permit SP 2006 013- SP 2007-09.
5. The screening condition to be worked out by staff prior to Board of Supervisors
hearing.
Mr. Driver asked for a quick clarification concerning Mr. Craddock's comment about providing
screening at the turn of the field. When talking with John Rintel this morning about this the
substantial Leyland Cyprus that he sees there he likes. The turn here is not the problem. It is
really these two other areas. He did not feel that Mr. Rintel could see the property in that
corner.
Ms. Joseph felt that was something that they needed to work out with staff and Mr. Rintel before
May 2.
Mr. Craddock said that would be fine because it does not show any trees on their property. It
looks like it is all on Rintel's property.
Ms. Joseph agreed.
Mr. Driver said that in fact if they look at this most of the trees are in a culvert on their side of
that. He did not think that this was really indicative of the vegetative of tree growth.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2006-009, Little Keswick School Amendment, would go before the
Board of Supervisors on May 2, 2007 with a recommendation for approval, but with a change to
the conditions to allow for the planting.
SP 2004-00050, Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Display (Sign #60)
PROPOSED: Expansion of the Flow Volkswagen -Audi -Mazda dealership, including outdoor
display and sale of automobiles in the Entrance Corridor.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC - Highway Commercial - commercial and service
uses and residential use by Special Use Permit (15 units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District - overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual
impacts of development along routes of tourist access.
SECTION: 30.6.3.2 (b) which allows for outdoor storage, display and /or sales visible from an
EC street in the EC Entrance Corridor zoning overlay district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional -scale retail,
wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 1307-09 and 1313 Richmond Road, south side of Route 250 East, approximately
1060' east of Riverbend Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/15E and 78/15D.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 24
STAFF: David Benish
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report.
• This is a request for a special use permit to allow for sales and display
associated with a proposal to expand the existing Flow Auto Dealership. The
existing Flow Auto Building is being expanded in some reconfiguration of the
outside vehicle sales and display area.
• On the adjacent parcel it is currently vacant, but a new dealership show room
building is being constructed with new sales and display on that site. There use
to be a stone resident on the adjacent site, which was demolished about two
years ago. The site is rough cleared. It has some gravel and is used as
temporary parking.
• The intent of the special use permit requirement is to review the potential impacts
of the Entrance Corridor for outdoor sales and display activity related to the
dealership operation. Other activities related to the auto sales is considered a by
right use. The ARB has reviewed the proposal and its impacts with the Route
250 Entrance Corridor and has not objections. The ARB has provided some
conditions, which have been reflected in the conditions for the special use permit.
As a general rule both the ARB staff, Planning staff and the ARB feel that overall
the proposed improvements on this site improve the conditions that are currently
there at this time, particularly for the existing auto dealership.
• The report indicated that there is no planning or zoning history on this site.
Obviously, there was development on this site at some point in time. There was
a site plan approval that took place in the early 70's. There is no information at
that time. But, technically there was a site plan approved.
• Factors Favorable:
1. Motor vehicle sales use is a by -right use in the Highway Commercial District;
2. ARB recommendation for approval (with conditions). There will be no
detrimental impacts to the entrance corridor as recommended by ARB.
• Staff found that no unfavorable factors to the sales and display request.
• Staff recommends approval with the six conditions as provided. Condition 2
should be corrected to April 2 from April 4.
Mr. Edgerton asked when the request was reviewed by the ARB. He questioned why the ARB's
conditions were not attached.
Mr. Benish replied that the ARB reviewed the request on March 19. He passed out copies of
the ARB's action memo.
Ms. Joseph noted that the reason for the special use permit is because the site is in the
Entrance Corridor and the use requested was outdoor sales and display.
Mr. Benish noted that the auto dealership use is a by right use. The review is primarily the
impact of the display area. There are 21 display parking spaces on the site to the west, which is
the new building. On the existing site there are 25 display parking spaces.
Ms. Joseph noted that they were putting in a new lane in the front of the site.
Mr. Benish said that as a general rule the frontage treatment is a vast improvement over what is
there particularly on the new site. The enlarged structure and the new building actually provide
a little bit of enclosure for that site enough though it has parking in front of it. There is a large
retaining wall. It is actually integrated into the building. The retaining wall and the building itself
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007 25
arguably is the by right aspect of it. What the Commission is primarily looking at is the visibility.
But, the ARB did comment on the retaining wall and construction and is comfortable with the
design. He noted that there is actually a ravine there. The Crown dealership is also built up,
which has a small retaining wall. This would be more of view that would be seen from down in
the drainage area. The adjacent development actually obscures some of the height of the
retaining wall.
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission. There being no one representing the applicant, she noted
that the Commission could still act on the request. She invited other public comment. There
being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that there was one correction in condition 2 to change the date to April 2.
Motion:
Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, for approval of SP-2004-00050, Flow Automotive
Companies Sales and Display subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended.
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the site plan
entitled "Flow Automotive," prepared by the Collins Engineering, dated April 2, 2007.
3. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces as identified on this
plan.
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with
the site plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the
minimum requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for
the negative visual impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding the retaining wall
on the west side of the property.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to the recordation of easements for ingress/egress, as
well as the installation, maintenance and use of parking spaces, planter islands, and
landscaping on adjacent parcels (Tax Map 78, Parcels 15D and 15E).
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (which shall be
submitted with the site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed 30 foot
candles. Maximum spillover lighting requirements must also be met.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2004-050, Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Display would go
before the Board of Supervisors on May 2, 2007 with a recommendation for approval.
Old Business:
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business.
■ Regarding the retreat, the Commission asked staff to provide copies of the maps and
spreadsheets on Friday night.
■ On Saturday morning, the Commission should bring their own drinks and
refreshments if they so desire.
■ Mr. Strucko will be absent next week.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 26
■ Staff needs to reschedule the work session for the Pantops Master Plan. There was
Niftw a suggestion that be a 4:00 p.m. session. Staff has not finalized that yet. It looks
like it may be as early as the second or third week of May.
■ The City Planning Commission would like to meet with the Commission on May 15.
The Commission can discuss Friday night what type of topics they would like to
discuss.
There being no further old business, the meeting moved on to the next item.
New Business:
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m. to the Friday, April 20, 2007 retreat
meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the Three Notched Grill at 5790 Three Notched Road in Crozet.
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
0
V. Wayne Pilimberg,
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Plan nib-1ommission & Planning
Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — APRIL 17, 2007 27