HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 19 2001 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
June 19, 2001
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 19, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were: Dennis Rooker, Chairman; Rodney
Thomas; Tracey Hopper and Pete Craddock. Other officials present were: Elaine Echols,
Stephen Waller, Scott Clark, Dan Mahon, Greg Kamptner and Wayne Cilimberg.
Mr. Rooker called the meeting to order and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
Mr. Rooker asked for additional matters from the public. There being none, the meeting
proceeded.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — June 6, 2001
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Meadowcreek Parkway plan was presented to the board
and approved with alternative alignment A. The consensus of the board was to adopt a
resolution to recommend to VDOT to proceed with that design. They also reviewed the
proposal for a greenway study committee to work in the next year to identify the priorities
and approaches for greenway development and to make a permanent standing
committee for the County. They approved Rainbow House and the John Adams Triton
facility. They considered and deferred action on the Jensen Triton facility. The primary
area of discussion from the board was regarding diameter. They decided not to condition
wooden poles with any diameter. Several board members commented that they felt the
commission was beginning to micro -manage in areas such as pole diameter. They felt
vim,,,. that the applicant knew best in areas such as pole diameter, particularly in the case of
wooden poles. They did not really talk about diameter of metal poles, but there may be
some diameter established for those. The consultant presented to the board a transit
development plan for the City and County.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cilimberg about the board's discussion about standardizing the
conditions for every cell tower.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they did have that discussion, and staff has tried to do just that.
Mr. Rooker said he agreed. We need to keep in mind that visibility varies from site to
site. Standardized conditions might result in some towers being disapproved.
Ms. Hopper added that with the cell tower policy there is a guide and some predictability.
The borderline applications are the ones we end up looking at more closely. She
understands the board's concerns.
Consent Agenda
a. Keswick — Cooperative Parking Agreement (Joan McDowell)
b. Addition to Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District — Referral to
Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee. The Blue Run District is located in
the vicinity of Batesville. This proposed addition, described as Tax Map 35 Parcel
28A and portions of Tax Map 35 Parcel 29, is located east of Route 641,
approximately 1.25 miles southeast of the intersection with Route 20.
c. SDP 01-015 Albemarle Winery Preliminary Site Plan —Two waivers are required in
order to allow construction and grading in an area with critical slopes: Waiver of
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, prohibiting disturbance of critical slopes and
a waiver of Section 4.2.1 prohibiting critical slopes within a building site.
d. Approval of Minutes — May 1, 2001.
Mr. Rooker asked if there should have been any information in the packet regarding the
Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was just a referral to the advisory committee.
Mr. Rooker asked if any of the commissioners wished to pull an item off the consent
agenda.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the consent agenda.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Items Requesting Deferral
a. ZMA-2001-004 SNB Car Wash (Sign #88, 891— Request to rezone 0.6 acres from
C-1 Commercial to HC Highway Commercial to allow for a car wash. The property,
described as Tax Map 61 Parcel 147 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Rio
Road at the corner of Rio Road and Gasoline Alley. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 2. (Elaine
Echols) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JULY 17, 2001
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. There being no comment, the hearing was
closed.
Ms. Hopper moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral to July 17, 2001.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
b. SP-2001-015 BB&T LMeriweather Lewis] (Sign #68) — Request for special use
permit to allow the installation of a drive through automatic teller machine (ATM) at
an existing bank, in accordance with Section 22.2.2.(10) of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property, described as Tax Map 58 Parcel 84A, contains 1.38 acres, and is
located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the north side of State Route 250
West, approximately 600 feet west of the intersection with Owensville Road and
Morgantown Road [Route 738]. This site is zoned C-1, Commercial in Rural Area 3
of the Comprehensive Plan. (Stephen Waller) APPLICANT REQUESTS
INDEFINITE DEFERRAL
Mr. Thomas moved to accept the applicant's request for indefinite deferral.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items
a. Addition to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District — The Batesville District is
located in the vicinity of Batesville. This proposed addition of one parcel totaling
50.120 acres described as Tax Map 70 Parcel 40, is located on the south side of
Route 637, approximately three-quarters of a mile east of the intersection with Route
�\1101111 2 3i
�
691. The parcel is located in the Samuel Miller magisterial district, is designated as
Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented the staff report.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. There being no comment, the hearing was
closed.
Ms. Hopper moved for approval of the addition to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal
District.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
ZMA-2001-002 Western Ridge — Phase 5C (Sinn #90, 91) — Request to rezone
26.560 acres from Rural Area -RA and R-4 with proffers to Planning Residential
Development-PRD to allow residential uses. The property is described as Tax Map
56 Parcel 93D Tax Map 56E Parcel 2-C, and a portion of Tax Map 56E Parcel 1A,
which is also described as a parcel Y intended as Open Space on recorded plat
Western Ridge Phase 5B. The property is located in the White Hall Magisterial
District off Lake Tree Lane [Route #1251]. The site is adjacent to the C&O Railroad.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as neighborhood density, 3-6 d/u
per acre in the Crozet Community. (Elaine Echols)
AND
SUB-2001-066 Western Ridge Phase 5C Preliminary Plat — Request for
preliminary plat approval for 18 single family lots on 26.560 acres zoned Rural Area -
RA but proposed for rezoning to Planning Residential Development-PRD. (Elaine
Echols)
Ms. Echols presented the staff report.
Mr. Thomas asked about the cul-de-sac, which Ms. Echols mentioned was acceptable in
this instance.
Ms. Echols replied that the property is sort of a long finger of land that has no access
from anywhere else. If you wanted to extend that road to create an additional access,
you would have to cross the very steep slopes and use a lot of fill. The cul-de-sac is
used appropriately in this instance.
Mr. Craddock asked if item #6 of the proffers is a complete sentence.
Ms. Echols replied that it was not, it also needs to say "then the contribution will be
returned to the applicant'.
Mr. Rooker said that he did not understand why the contribution had to be made by
December 31, 2001 if it could be extended out for 10 years.
Ms. Echols replied that the County would hold the cash proffer. If it is not used for the
intended purpose, it would be returned to the applicant.
Mr. Rooker asked what was the total amount of property in open space.
Ms. Echols replied that it should be about 18 acres.
*4mw Mr. Rooker verified that number had not changed from the previous preliminary plat.
�O\Xl 3 �J7
14,OW Ms. Echols replied that the first preliminary plat had more open space on it. The areas
that were avoided were on critical slopes.
Mr. Rooker verified that proffer #2 covers disturbance of the critical slopes.
Ms. Echols replied that it did.
Ms. Hopper asked about the 2"d paragraph in the transportation subsection where it
spoke of the asphalt path that has not been built as of yet. She asked if that was an
enforcement issue.
Ms. Echols said yes, it is an enforcement issue. As a subdivision item, the County will be
going back to the owner who created the plat and require that they put in the pedestrian
path.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was clear that we have the right to require that at this time.
Ms. Echols replied that the subdivision agent has that right because there is an existing
easement.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was necessary or possible to include something in these proffers
that makes certain that happens.
Mr. Kamptner replied that these proffers pertain only to this application.
Mr. Rooker stated that they propose to use the amenities of the other property.
1%rr Mr. Cilimberg said it was subdivision violation, because it was shown on the plat.
Nothing on the proffers would change the County's enforcement ability.
Mr. Rooker verified that the County is comfortable that we have the enforcement ability to
make it happen.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he had been advised that.
Mr. Kamptner said that we could encourage the applicant to volunteer a proffer.
Mr. Rooker stated that we have one of the same applicants on these proffers.
Mr. Kamptner said that we should be able to take care of it through the subdivision
process.
Mr. Rooker replied that he would like to be certain between now and the board meeting.
If not, we should consider putting something in these proffers to make certain it happens.
Ms. Hopper would be interested in knowing if the applicant would be willing to do that.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce Keys, the applicant, addressed the commission. He said there is only about a
third of an acre that is owned by Hunter Craig Corporation. He believes it is an unfair
burden to tie the path to this request since he is not a party of the initial request.
"err Mr. Rooker verified that the property was already contracted to be transferred to Mr.
Craig's corporation.
%\\� 4 3JY
"#*r Mr. Keys replied that they had an agreement.
cm
Ms. Hopper asked if it was an option or if there is there a contract signed in which it is
sold.
Mr. Keys replied the status is pending. Upon approval of the Board of Supervisors the
contract will be executed.
There being no further comment, Mr. Rooker closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker said he would support the application with the additional proffers and the
knowledge that the County has some ability to enforce the building of the pedestrian
path.
Mr. Thomas commented on the recommended action, a couple of words were left out of
#1 on page 8.
Mr. Cilimberg said the final proffers would address those.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that in proffer 6 there needs to be some changes as well.
Ms. Hopper said she had two concerns. She probably would not support this application
without the similarity of the adjacent subdivision. Her second concern is the affordable
housing issue.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the elements of this plan that spoke to the density is the fact
that you have to enter through the other subdivision.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that road runs along the ridge.
Ms. Hopper said that the density we are looking at makes sense in this application.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval with proffers as may be modified after County
Attorney review before the Board of Supervisors' meeting.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Rooker asked if any action was needed on SUB-2001-066.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the process allows for administrative approval of a plat with the
zoning in place unless an adjoining owner or the commission requests a review.
The commission agreed that no action was necessary.
c. SP-2001-010 Afton Farm Market (Sign #65) — Request for special use permit to
allow on -farm sales in accordance with Section 10.2.2.45 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for farm sales. The property, described as Tax Map 69 Parcel 13,
contains 11.51 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Route
151, approximately one -quarter mile from the intersection of Route 151 and Route
637. The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this property as Rural Area. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented the staff report.
**'" Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
,Mkll 5 3 / q
Ms. Cheryl Bowman, the applicant, said staff had adequately covered the item in the staff
report. She had no further comment.
There being no further comment, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker said that this is a proposed use that is consistent with the rural area goals,
and he would support it.
Ms. Hopper moved for approval with the condition.
1. Sales shall not occur in areas labeled "no public access" in the sketch -plan packet
title "Schematic of Afton Farm Property," dated 21 May 2001 and signed by Cheryl
Borgman.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the three waiver requests.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
d. SP-2001-014 BB&T Wantogs] (Sign #62, 67) — Request for special use permit to
allow the installation of a drive through automatic teller machine (ATM) at an existing
bank, in accordance with Section 25.2.2.(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. (Stephen
Waller)
Mr. Waller presented the staff report.
W Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. There being no comment, the hearing was
closed.
Ms. Hopper moved for approval with the condition.
1. The permittee shall continue to provide the unobstructed by-pass lane, in order to
allow the unobstructed passage of vehicles around the drive -through lanes.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
e. SP-2001-016 Toys R Us (Sign #70, 75) — Request for special use permit to allow for
the outdoor display of playground equipment in accordance with Section [30.6.3.2b]
of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor display and storage in the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. The property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel
12, is located in the Rio Magisterial District at the intersection of Route 29 and
Branchlands Blvd. The property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service. (Dan Mahon)
Mr. Mahon presented the staff report.
Mr. Rooker asked if these pictures show the site as it will look.
Mr. Mahon replied that they were taken today.
Ms. Hopper verified that the enforceability would be around the set height limit, it would
not be zoning's need to determine between visible and noticeable.
*aw Mr. Mahon replied that was correct.
Sao
M
09
09
Mr. Rooker said that originally the height was in reference to the slope.
Mr. Thomas said that the display items could appear to be taller depending on the point
of view.
Mr. Mahon said that he did have pictures from the entrance corridor, and all you can see
is the yellow of the canopy.
Mr. Craddock stated that the commission could require bushes to be planted along the
top of the ridge.
Ms. Hopper asked if that would address the concerns.
Mr. Mahon replied that it would.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ron Hubbard, store director at Toys R Us, said he is willing to do whatever it takes to
pass the application. His customers really like to see these items on display before they
make such a substantial purchase. He just needs to know the guidelines and will go from
there.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Thomas said he would like to add a condition requiring more trees.
Mr. Rooker vegetation will be planted along the ridge so that the equipment is not
viewable from the entrance corridor.
Mr. Kamptner asked if Toys R Us owned the ridge.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that junipers go up the hillside now.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Kamptner if that was acceptable.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it was.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if they would substitute two with that or combine with the existing #2.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the commission wanted an absolute height limit.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the applicant had a 9 %2 foot structure.
Ms. Hopper said perhaps the commission should alter the limit to 9'/2.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested changing the height to 10 feet.
Mr. Rooker asked if that was acceptable to the commissioners.
Ms. Hopper moved for approval with conditions as amended.
1. The display shall be limited to the paved area of the fifteen parking spaces located at
the southeastern corner of the parking lot.
2. The height of the items being displayed shall be limited to 10'.
3. Revise the current site plan to reflect these conditions.
4. No additional lighting shall be introduced to the site for the purpose of illuminating
this display.
5. The display shall be permitted on an annual basis only between the dates of March
i St through September 30tn
6. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB
for the site plan.
7. The area between the display area and the Branchlands Boulevard right-of-way
shall be landscaped in a manner, approved by the County"s design planner, so
that the display items are screened from view from the Entrance Corridor and
Branchlands Boulevard.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Old Business
There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Ms. Hopper brought up two items. Regarding rezonings, looking at Rivanna Village and
in general, would it be helpful to have a commissioner involved in the process at an
earlier stage.
Mr. Cilimberg asked what kind of involvement she was looking for. He does not want to
get out ahead of something that's expected by a commissioner because they expected to
be involved.
Ms. Hopper said she does not understand the process entirely, does not know all the
steps, and would be open to Mr. Cilimberg's input as to when it would be appropriate to
get involved. Perhaps there could be a planning commission liaison.
Mr. Rooker said the problem he sees with that is that an individual does not speak for the
commission. Developers could be led to believe that an individual's comments reflected
the view of the entire commission. Developers often call commissioners and board
members in advance of a rezoning and ask to make a presentation. We are permitted to
get involved anytime we want to. Perhaps there should be some type of a notice
process. He is not sure that we need anything more formal than what already exists.
Ms. Hopper agreed with a lot of what Mr. Rooker said. One issue for here is education
for the commissioner. She would like the notice idea, sometimes we don't get the
agendas. She asked when would be a good time for a commissioner to come to a
meeting about a rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff may or may not have meetings. He does not think it is
appropriate for a commissioner to be involved in staff review. Staff is there to provide
professional, independent opinion. Having a board member or commissioner involved
could effect the way staff looks at an issue. He would suggest attending community
meetings or other meetings with the developer. The commissioners should be getting a
listing of the projects submitted in your district when they first come in, including the plans
'°40.' submitted.
8 3a�
Ms. Hopper replied that she does get those.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the commissioners are also supposed to get the all of the
applications for rezonings and special use permits that are occurring in their district.
Ms. Hopper replied that she is not getting those.
Mr. Rooker said that they are not always getting those. He said it seems to him that
anything that we want we are entitled to come down and get, we can make copies of
items in the file.
Mr. Thomas said he has also had meetings with individual staff members.
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Cilimberg that there is somewhat of a fine line between
participation and giving the impression that you are looking for a particular outcome.
Ms. Hopper stated that she does not think we have any business being involved in staff
meetings.
Mr. Cilimberg said he is surprised the commissioners are not receiving the information on
the rezonings. It is better for everyone involved if the commission is well informed.
Ms. Hopper said that there is so much for us to learn, that information would be helpful.
Mr. Rooker stated that staff has a better picture of the items we want to see when a
rezoning come before us because of the list we developed.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had been noticing the last few months that when the applicant had
not met some of the concerns of staff, the application was brought before the commission
to provide additional comments to the applicant.
Ms. Hopper would like to get on top of it enough to let staff know her concerns ahead of
time.
Mr. Rooker said that a couple of times he's called staff directly with his concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would be doing a lot of e-mailing.
Ms. Hopper wondered regarding where things are with DISC and the ZTA's.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been a major PUD amendment submitted by the applicant
for the village of Glenmore, that staff is reviewing in line with the recommendations of the
neighborhood model. We will be bringing them to you for a basic overview of how we will
approach getting those to you and the areas to be covered in the review. Several of the
issues that came up in the neighborhood model are being addressed in a zoning text
amendment team. We are looking at an overhaul of the parking requirements and
setbacks. Finally, we are working on an overall plan of action for a number of different
areas that need to be undertaken to implement the neighborhood model.
Mr. Rooker said there was apparently some discussion with Elaine at a meeting with the
Glenmore residents concerning the town center, as to whether the work sessions would
be open for public comment. Ms. Echols sent an e-mail to him regarding that question.
His response was that he did not think it was appropriate. The idea of a work session is
really to educate the commission by staff of the issues surrounding something that may
44,01
n
come before us at a later time. The work session would in effect become a public
hearing.
Mr. Thomas stated that in his opinion, a work session should be a work session.
Mr. Rooker said that we would certainly allow the public to sit and listen.
Mr. Craddock agreed, and said that the public is going to tell us about their concerns
anyway, and we'll bring it up during the session.
Ms. Hopper thinks that there should be no public comment in the work session. In order
to address the inherent frustration that comes up with different applications, we need to
give commissioner's contact information to the public at the work session so they don't
have to search for the information. It would also be helpful to have the process outlined
for them.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there would be an outline provided next week.
Mr. Rooker requested additional copies to have available for handout at the meeting next
week. He verified that the work session next week was not project specific.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it was not.
Mr. Thomas said that on the Home Depot issue, with the residents in that area, things
bogged down because there was so much input. We ended up having a meeting with a
mediator to let the public know where they stood.
Mr. Cilimberg said it seemed relevant because it was a site plan.
Mr. Rooker stated that we got numerous a -mails and letters from people. The public
does not hesitate to give the views.
Ms. Hopper requested that at the beginning of the work session, we clarify that we are
talking about a CPA that it countywide and not particular.
Mr. Rooker agreed to do that.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Recorded and transcribed by Lynda Myers, Recording Secretary