HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 01 2000 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
February 1, 2000
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
February 1, 2000 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; Ms. Tracy Hopper; Mr. Pete Craddock. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Transportation
Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering; Mr. Steve Snell, County Engineering; Mr. Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Approval of Minutes — January 11, 2000 and January 18, 2000
The Commission moved, seconded and approved the minutes of January 1 lth and January 18th as
amended.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — January 19, 2000
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board considered two items previously reviewed by the
Commission, and granted approval of Sunday School expansion for two homes at the Crozet Baptist
Church, and also granted approval for outdoor display at Pegasus.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
Prior to voting on the Consent Agenda, Mr. Rooker indicated his abstention as he has a client
associated with one Consent Agenda item.
SDP 99-156 Peter Jefferson Place IV Preliminary Site Plan — Critical slope waiver, curvilinear
parking modification and modification to eliminate loading spaces.
Mill Creek Market Car Wash — Cooperative Marking Modification.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as presented,
with Mr. Rooker abstaining from the vote.
Public Hearing Items
SP 99-58 Pinnell Custom Leather
Request for special use permit to allow for a workshop for handcrafted items in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.36 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for gift, craft and antique shops by special
use permit in the Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax map 40 Parcel 12, contains 7.953
acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on the west side of Whitehall Road
(Route 810) approximately one -quarter mile south of its intersection with Bearwood Road (Route
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 19
811). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is designated Rural in the Comprehensive Plan in
` Rural Area 1.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the proposed site is located on an 8-acre
parcel in the White Hall District about 1/4 mile south of the 810/811 intersection. The
applicant is proposing to establish a leather workshop in old apple packing facility on the
property. The site will be used as a workshop only, and no sales or events are proposed on
the site. Mr. Benish noted that there will be no more than 4 employees on the site in addition
to the applicant. He mentioned that the applicant is currently using part of the barn as a
residence. He reported that staff has reviewed the request, and is recommending approval
with conditions, with the only issue of note being the access to the entrance, which has been
satisfactorily addressed by VDOT comments.
Mr. Benish said that VDOT is requiring a limited improvement to the entrance to allow for
two vehicles to pass; VDOT is OK with the sight distance, but has recommended
maintenance monitoring of the existing sight distance to make sure it is maintained. He
added that VDOT recommends clearing of a small patch of trees where possible to improve
the sight distance; a portion of that area being requested area is probably within the
prescriptive easement. Mr. Benish reviewed the conditions recommended by staff as
outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Rieley asked where the limitation on the number of employees originated.
Mr. Benish responded that it was agreed upon by the applicant, as they felt it was a sufficient
number for the operation, and it minimized the amount of traffic entering and leaving the
site.
Mr. Thomas asked how many residents live there now.
Mr. Benish said a husband and wife live there now, with a portion of the barn converted for
their apartment.
Mr. Rieley asked if the photos where supplied by the applicant, stating that they were a "big
help."
Mr. Benish replied that they were supplied by the applicant.
Mr. Finley commented that he used to pack peaches in that same barn.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Virginia Pinnell, addressed the Commission, stating that she feels the use is a
good one for the building.
Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Pinnell if she anticipates the limitation on four employees to be
acceptable.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 20
Ms. Pinnell said that there business is small, and four is the maximum number they want to
work with.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if they had received any feedback from the neighbors in the area.
Ms. Pinnell said that they have spoken with all residents in the area, and only one neighbor —
who lives in Germany — expressed concern. She reported that they have corresponded, and
they are comfortable with the arrangement. "Everyone seems very positive, and actually
glad to see the place cleaned up."
Mr. Finley ask if the young man Ms. Pinnell helped train is now working with them.
Ms. Pinnell said that one employee — from the Living Education Center, had been an
apprentice, and now he will work full time. She said that her company has a retail shop in
Charlottesville on the downtown mall and is not interested in having the public at their
Crozet workshop site.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said that it seems to be a very appropriate use of the property, and he is pleased
that the owners are maintaining the historic building and improve it. He commended the
applicant for using the site in a way that's in keeping with the surrounding rural area.
Mr. Rieley commented that even the use has agricultural associations.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of SP 99-58 as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 99-14 Hydraulic Dental Center
SP 99-067 Hydraulic Dental Center
Request to rezone 1.23 acres from R-4 Residential to R-10 Residential which permits professional
offices by special use permit and a waiver to permit grading and clearing in the twenty foot buffer
area. The applicant is also requesting a special use permit (SP 99-067) in accordance with Section
17.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for professional offices in R-10 zoned areas. The
property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 36 and 36A1, contains 1.23 acres, and is located in the
Rio Magisterial District on Hydraulic Road [Route 743] across from Albemarle High School. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property for urban density residential use in Development Area
1. (Deferred from the January 11 and January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meetings).
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a
12,500 square foot professional office building. He explained that staff has found that the
parking area previously described as problematic was indeed in violation, and the property
owners have been informed by Zoning that that needs to be changed (Attachment "A"). Mr.
Wade said that work is underway to rectify the situation.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 21
Mr. Rooker asked if the parking in violation is on the property being considered for the SP
..' and rezoning, or on the adjoining property.
Mr. Wade replied that the parking lot is on the adjoining property, and is not a part of the
application.
Mr. Rooker asked if the property owner was the same for both properties.
Mr. Wade responded that there is one joint owner.
Mr. Wade stated that staff recommends approval of the ZMA and SP, but does not
recommend approval of the waiver for grading in the clearing area. He mentioned the
conditions as outlined in the staff report and the proffer associated with the ZMA.
Mr. Cilimberg elaborated that staff discussed with the applicant (under the rezoning) possible
proffers to provide a concept of development should it be developed under R-10, but the
applicant felt there would not be a possibility of developing the property under R-10 for
residential purposes due to situations with access. The applicant felt that it would be best to
keep the existing residential allowances under the R-4 zoning that is in place; if they develop
residentially, it would be to the limits of the R-4 zoning. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the
only reason they went for R-10 was to get the office special use permit, and added that the
operative conditions of this development are really in the special use permit, not in the
proffer.
Mr. Rooker asked about the distance from the proposed parking lot to Hydraulic Road, and
how it compares to the distance of the buffer area between Hydraulic Road and the adjoining
property.
Mr. Wade said that the parking lot would be approximately 35 feet from Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Rooker noted that the setback on the existing commercial property appears to be twice of
that proposed for the new development. He also asked if there was any proposal for
preserving any of the existing large -specimen trees on site.
Mr. Wade responded that the applicant plans to enhance what is there, and the waiver would
allow him just to construct the travel ways for the parking area. If he does not get the waiver,
he will have to construct some type of retaining wall. Mr. Wade emphasized that these items
would be addressed in more detail at the site plan level.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that between the building and the paved parking lots, there is
not space for trees, the front part of the lot is heavily treed, and there is no plan in the sketch
to preserve the trees scattered throughout the site.
Mr. Wade replied that the original conceptual plan was not very clear, adding that the
applicant could address that issue. He noted that he thought the applicant might not yet have
*, gotten into that level of detail.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 22
Mr. Thomas asked what the code stipulates for parking lot setback, given that one is set back
just 35 feet.
Mr. Rieley noted that it depends on the zone.
Mr. Rooker said, "What we've got in effect is a commercial use taking place under
residential zoning."
Mr. Cilimberg said that there is residential R-10 zoning that carries setbacks, but what the
applicant will get through the SP is commercial office; "what we really might want to focus
on is a commercial office setback, which has a different setback for the use and the parking."
Mr. Rieley said they are not asking for commercial office zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that while they are not asking for it, that is effectively what will be
gained under the plan.
Mr. Rooker asked what kind of setback is being looked at for properties in the entrance
corridor.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is not looked at differently.
Mr. Kamptner indicated that the ordinance stipulates a setback of 30 feet for commercial
properties, and 10 feet for off-street parking from a public right-of-way.
Mr. Rieley asked how wide the right-of-way is on Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Wade said he did not have the information on VDOT's right of way.
Ms. Hopper asked if the applicant had indicated what type of screening he plans to provide
between his property and the neighbors' properties.
Mr. Wade responded that the applicant was planning to put a fence or some type of screening
up to provide a buffer between the problematic parking lot and the residential properties
behind it. He mentioned that the applicant has come to a resolution with the neighbors.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is not a parking setback in the residential districts stipulated in
the ordinance, but in the past the county has used the commercial office setbacks where
offices are introduced in residential districts. He added that the Commission may wish to
include the setback in the conditions, possibly making it parallel what would be required in
commercial office zoning.
Mr. Rooker said, "I think they should be more in line with the neighboring development."
He added that the question of whether this commercial property fits into the community is
subjective decision that needs to be made by the Commission.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 23
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was a reason why the arrangement made between the
applicant and the neighbors is not a part of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Wade said that they could be, but the applicant was just finalizing them before the
meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that was very important, because there was a lot of comment at the January
1 Ith meeting regarding the lack of screening, and lack of property definition. He added that
those issues could be addressed through fencing and screening.
Mr. Wade said that given the parking area in violation, the applicant must put back natural
screening or amend the plan which would facilitate a requirement for fencing or screening.
"It's going to get addressed, either through conditions or through the violation notice."
Mr. Finley asked if it was normal procedure to go through R-10 to get offices.
Mr. Wade said he has never handled one.
Mr. Cilimberg said that occasionally, this does occur. He explained that in the
Comprehensive Plan, this is an area designated for residential use, and this gave the applicant
the opportunity to have a residential zoning in case it were to be residentially used, or to go
to office through special use permit for a transitional use.
Mr. Rooker said, "If they don't build according to the special use permit, then they intend to
revert back to the R-4 zoning."
Mr. Cilimberg said that another option would have been a CO zoning with a setback waiver
and proffers to only have office use. He added that the advice given to the applicant at the
time the review was initiated was to have the flexibility of residential/commercial or
combined use, which could also happen in the case of R-10 plus office.
Ms. Hopper asked if the parking lot in violation would be used for access into the new
commercial property.
Mr. Rooker commented that this development would have to enter existing parking lots on
the adjacent property in order to reach Hydraulic Road, and will not have an entrance onto
Hydraulic Road. He asked if staff had an opinion on this means of accessing Hydraulic.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that there would be two travel ways to Whitewood Road, which is
"not too unusual" in comparison to office and commercial development in other areas. He
cited the example of Berkmar Drive, where there are offices that have a lot of connected
parking areas to reach Berkmar Drive. Mr. Cilimberg noted that Hydraulic doesn't have
suitable sight distance for direct access, and added that the travel way on the adjacent site
lines up to the two aisles that would be created in the new development. "It's not unusual to
have that in interconnecting developments that are both residential and commercial."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 24
Mr. Wade illustrated on a map presented where the parking lot was located, explaining that
the runoff from the lot is not flowing correctly, causing problems for the neighbors downhill.
He said that engineering would probably require curb and gutter from the lot to Hydraulic
Road.
Mr. Thomas clarified that the gravel lot causing problems has nothing to do with SP being
considered tonight.
Mr. Wade confirmed this, but said that staff was glad it was brought to their attention so the
problems could be addressed. He added that the owners would have to amend their site plan
in order to keep the parking lot.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that he noticed the lot was being used on a regular basis. He
commented that the areas being driven through as exits for the property are comprised of
parking places, not roads. "There's no access road along Hydraulic Road servicing these
properties in common. What you've got basically is a fairly tight parking lot that will be
used as a circulation area for an adjoining property ... it's not the same as many other
commercial connections you see in between properties."
Mr. Thomas said, "I've seen lots of parking lots connected in different areas of businesses.
don't see where this is any different from any other — going from one parking lot to the
other."
Mr. Rooker emphasized that normally with connected lots, the lots are much wider with real
travel lanes in them, such as shopping centers. He noted that with the Hydraulic property,
"you don't have any real access lanes or roads servicing these properties. What you've got
are fairly tight parking lots with spaces on both sides now becoming used as — in effect — an
access road from one property to another.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the county has both, mentioning that offices off of Berkmar Drive
require that you go through connected parking areas. He emphasized that what the key is to
connecting parking areas through travel ways is the distance that you have to go through
existing parking. Mr. Cilimberg cited Westgate Apartments and Squire Hill as examples of
parking areas that connect in a similar fashion, and said that shopping centers have long
aisles that are broken up, with travel ways around them.
Mr. Thomas said that Sachem Village off of Whitewood Road behind the Mexican
Restaurant has a similar parking arrangement.
Mr. Rooker stressed that that is a "huge lot," and is not really comparable to the Hydraulic
example. He added that the complex in Berkmar was planned to be interconnected.
Mr. Loewenstein said that his major concern is also the tightness of the lot, adding that if the
Commission has approved this type of arrangement in the past with similar conditions it's
been a mistake. "I think that this is a prescription for disaster, when you've got active use of
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 25
all the lots during the day, and you've got people backing in and out of what will become a
travel way now for much of it's length, I can't imagine that this is going to do anything but
create trouble."
Mr. Loewenstein continued that it is going to be confusing to get people back to that location.
"It's going to be frustrating to some people to figure out how to get to their front door." He
concluded that his concern is primarily with safety. "It looks like a minimal way to fit
something in in this location for this purpose, and I don't think it quite passes all the tests to
satisfy me. I'm really concerned about the traffic circulation."
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant had suggested any alternative way to parking lot situation.
Mr. Wade said the applicant has not offered any alternatives.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they restrictive factor is that the applicant can't get sight distance on
Hydraulic Road. "With any development they would do, they would have to rely on going
through the offices to get to their property....if they were not able to go through those offices,
essentially they would have their current use."
Mr. Rieley agreed that the circulation is a concern, but said that "I'm struck by the Alice in
Wonderland nature of the argument that this is hard to get to, therefore we should make the
use much more intensive."
Ms. Hopper said that unlike a grocery store parking lot where you can get speed going, the
way the Hydraulic parking lots are set up, "You would be moving a lot slower. So the
chances of it being a safety hazard are decreased to some extent."
Mr. Craddock says he uses the building for his daughter's dentist, and the parking is "slow
and easy." He also wondered where the employees would park if the gravel lot was not still
a parking area, as they use it now.
Ms. Hopper said she would like to hear information about how much traffic is anticipated.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was a standard to convert commercial square footage to vehicle
trips per day.
Mr. Wade said they could use the ITE trip generation to determine this.
Mr. Rieley said it would be very useful information to have.
Mr. Rieley also said he had a difficult time making the correlation between the R-4 and the
proposed use with the special use permit and the R-10 in terms of square footage and parking
coverage. He asked how many units per acre would be permissible.
Mr. Cilimberg said there could be four units per acre.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 26
Mr. Rieley calculated that if the property were developed residentially, there might be about
low 6000 square feet of residential property permitted with a driveway and a few parking spaces,
as opposed to 12,500 square feet of commercial property with all of its associated parking.
"It really is a huge increase."
Mr. Wade said that the difference is the applicant has not had the house surveyed, and staff
does not know if the basement is finished or not.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that once the property is rezoned, there is no guarantee that this
particular development would go forward. "The zoning runs with the land. A new owner
could come tear this house down and put up a 14,000 square foot office building."
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the conditions of the SP are based on this concept plan, so the
way the square footage would be laid out would have to be consistent with the conditions.
"Whoever the owner is, the conditions are those you impose."
Public comment was invited.
Representing the applicants, Mr. Mike Matthews of Matthews Development Co. addressed
the Commission. He explained that the dentists have been practicing next door to the site for
a long time, and are now out of space. They would like to build a new facility on the
neighboring 1.23-acre parcel, which they have placed under contingent purchase contract.
Mr. Matthews explained that they did not apply for rezoning to CO, but instead applied for
R-10 and conditioned everything that is CO. He emphasized that the conditions are all the
same, with the setbacks based on commercial standards, as reflected in their plans. Mr.
Matthews said that the proffer on the ZMA basically "unrezones" the property if they do not
do what their conditioned plan shows.
Mr. Matthews mentioned letters (Attachment `B") signed by all dentists in both adjacent
buildings, and a letter from an Oak Forest landowner. He said that he had met with the other
next door neighbor — the Old Oak Court Association — and has summarized their discussions
in writing. Mr. Matthews noted that everyone he has asked has indicated they would rather
see professional offices than apartments or duplexes.
Mr. Rooker asked if the residential use could be made more intense than it is right now,
given the existing access on this property.
Mr. Matthews responded that with cooperation from either side, it could be; otherwise, it
would probably stay as it is now. He added that every property along Hydraulic in this
section has problems with sight distance and other access issues onto Hydraulic. Mr.
Matthews explained that the property needs to either become a part of the dental offices
already there, or part of a residential complex that would mirror Old Oak in some fashion,
using their access. He emphasized that residents are not in favor having additional
residential.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 27
Mr. Matthews said, "It's a troublesome corridor, and we think this is a way to solve that
*4W problem — to make a parcel that is an infill parcel in the growth area useful in a manner that is
in fact exactly the same as the adjacent use — providing a needed healthcare service." He
mentioned that the waiver came about from a set of conditions for setbacks for commercial
office, because they must build up to setback line in order to get the parking needed and
support the buildings for the dentists. "It's a fairly steep property. There's a lot of topo
change — 30 feet front to back. —You can't build on that without grading some on the side, or
you significantly eliminate the development potential on site."
CM
Mr. Matthews said he has met with several neighbors — Mr. Jones and Mr. Stratton — on site,
whose concerns involved the gravel parking lot. Mr. Matthews said he told them they would
build a fence in the back, and would place it where the neighbors want it.
Mr. Thomas asked him if there would be any pines or buffering plants planted to shield the
fence, and asked how far the fence would be from the property line.
Mr. Matthews responded that there is a fair amount of vegetation in some areas, and if the
fence is placed "far enough up," it may not be necessary, and said that they had not
determined an exact location for the fence yet.
Mr. Matthews noted that the plan the Commission has was submitted in response to a request
to show all neighboring properties, and does not show the widening of Hydraulic in front of
the existing office building, or the sidewalk and the retaining wall. He mentioned that the
front of both sites have power lines with trees that have been cut, not a particular aesthetic
asset at this time. Mr. Matthews added that the applicant will be conditioning their plan on
improvement of the sight distance that serves the adjacent building, which involves cutting
into the banks. He said that the internal circulation was designed with input from staff and
VDOT, and really just creates "a larger dental complex."
Mr. Finley asked about the parking on the condemned parking lot.
Mr. Matthews said that the parking lot will probably be corrected and brought into
conformity. He said there have been plans in the past for a building there, which was not
built because of the parking situation.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Matthews if VDOT thought the plan was good.
Mr. Matthews responded that there has been no formal VDOT review, but he has spoken
with VDOT reps who seem to be supportive of the plan.
Mr. Rieley said that it would be very unusual for VDOT to comment on internal circulation,
and what they probably support is having all of the traffic come out in one place.
Mr. Matthews noted that VDOT did suggest some left -turn out restrictions from the existing
buildings during peak hours.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 28
Mr. Finley asked if the existing parking was perpendicular spaces.
Mr. Matthews responded that it is, adding that the site plan would be similar to what exists
on the other office site. He added that the proposed buildings have a high square footage
because the lower building is two stories out of necessity, and their may not be much use at a
lower level. Mr. Matthews said the applicant does not plan to offer rent space for anything
else in the unused portion.
Mr. Finley asked what the entry width would be, and wondered if it would it be more than
the travel lane in the parking lot.
Mr. Matthews responded that it looks about the same, and added that his biggest concern
with the internal circulation is making sure the patients know where they're going.
Ms. Hopper asked what the sight distance would be, noting the applicant's mention of the
increase to 425 feet.
Mr. Matthews confirmed that the sight distance described would be for the adjacent property
onto Hydraulic.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the width of the parking lot for the new proposed facility was
considerably greater than the width of the existing parking lot below it through which the
traffic will have to exit.
Fellow Commissioners indicated that the new lot is wider.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Matthews to indicate where the fence discussed would be located.
Mr. Matthews said that they do not have a specific location in mind for the fence, and would
like to work it out with the neighbors.
Mr. Rieley asked if the fence would be extended onto the property that is the subject of the
application.
Mr. Matthews said that given the CO restrictions they are trying to conform with, it's a
necessity to have screening through double -staggered evergreens or a fence. The neighbors
have indicated that they prefer a fence to stop foot traffic.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the fence would stop at the applicant's property line.
Mr. Matthews responded that it would continue between them and Old Oak.
Mr. Rieley said he was struck by the strange juxtaposition on the site plan of the proposed
building right next to the eave-line of the 1 % story house.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000
29
Mr. Matthews said that the applicant is not attempting to present a site plan, but just wants to
1*4W convey a sense of how the building mass, density and basic layout could be developed as
professional office. "These are conceptual blocks, and we've hired an architect whose
experienced in these matters ... I would hope through that process we could come up with a
good architectural solution." He mentioned that most people want to save the house, and the
dentists hope to incorporate it in their plan.
Mr. Rieley responded that he is concerned that if the zoning is approved, it is the beginning
point for everything that comes afterwards. He stated that the Commission loses 90% of
their capacity to influence the final outcome of a project once it passes the zoning threshold
and gets to the site plan level.
Mr. Rieley also indicated that the property has a park -like setting which contributes
enormously to the ambiance of the entire area, including the neighboring dental offices. "It
really is a nice complex of buildings ... I do think that is an important consideration that needs
to be folded into the design of this site." He said that the site looks as though it is going to be
graded from one end to the other, with 8 foot trees replacing 50 foot trees.
Mr. Matthews said that in his discussions with the Old Oak neighbors, he assured them that
they would attempt to save as many trees on site as possible. "We've already empowered
our surveyor to go out and label every significant tree on the site, and if a little good planning
can save those trees, then we will do that." He acknowledged that "most of these trees are
going to have to come down, and there's no way around that on a steep site like this. We
hope that through the ordinance and the landscaping requirements that we'll leave a nice site,
and that the big trees in the back will stay." He added that they would also attempt to protect
trees during the building process.
Mr. Rieley said that while staff has not recommended the waiver for grading within the
buffer, that's all part of the overall picture, and since there is nothing that shows the proposed
grading, "it's a little hard for us to assess the impact of this proposal on this site." He
thanked the applicant for his candor in admitting that the foliage is going to be wiped out
from the curbline to behind the house. Mr. Rieley said that sidewalks and pedestrian
circulation that connect this property with the adjacent property or to Hydraulic Road are not
shown in this plan, and wondered if that would be addressed at the site plan level.
Mr. Matthews said the plan currently shows just the sidewalks to serve the site, and no
connection is established with the adjacent property. He said that there is not a lot of cross
traffic, but added, "if such a connection is desirable, I don't see a problem with that."
Mr. Craddock asked if VDOT would let them put in a deceleration lane.
Mr. Matthews said that VDOT somewhat limits what they can do on Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Rooker said that the landscaping on the bank at the entrance of the existing commercial
property onto Hydraulic is somewhat pleasant, and asked Mr. Matthews to what extent the
bank would be disturbed.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 30
V*.r Mr. Matthews said that the tall junipers may need to be taken out and replaced because they
block the site. He mentioned that the frontage of the parcel in question is not great, and it is
"going to take a little work" to gain sight distance there. "We'll have to cut the top of that
hill down, and hopefully replace those trees with trees that aren't going to go into the power
lines."
Mr. Rieley asked if the proffers received today had been presented previously.
Mr. Wade responded that this is the first time they have been sent out, as some revisions had
been made to them.
Mr. Matthews emphasized that the conditions are as they were originally in the submission —
except at that time they were proffers — and the applicant has spent a great deal of time
working with county staff to perfect them.
Mr. Rooker said that in the staff report there is a description of what the proffer is, but there
is not a copy of the exact original proffer language. He asked Mr. Cilimberg to address why
they were put into conditions instead of proffers.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that when R-10 zoning was explained to the applicant, they
decided they would exercise their rights under R-10 zoning. Staff was concerned that there
was nothing attached to it that would impact the way the site was developed or access was
provided. All the original proffers spoke to office use that was only going to be allowed
through special use permit. Staff suggested having proffers that would speak separately to
designing the site under R-10 for residential development, but the applicant responded that
they would probably not develop it under R-10 for residential. Given that information, staff
told them it would be best to proffer it that way, with limiting conditions in the special use
permit. "That's why those old proffers are now in the conditions of the office special use
permit."
Mr. Matthews concluded that they have not gone to the exhaustive and expensive level of
making a site plan, and emphasized that there is a land transaction hanging in the balance.
"We hope you will concur with the staff report, and the sentiment of the majority of the
neighbors and offer your approval."
Dwayne Jones of Oak Forest subdivision addressed the Commission. He reported that he has
spoken to each adjacent resident, and said that all residents are in agreement that there should
be a wooden infill fence as a buffer between the commercial property and the residential
area. He indicated that Mr. Matthews agrees with the fence and its proposed setback away
from neighbors back yards. Mr. Jones said that he and other neighbors agree with Mr.
Matthews that this type of development is appropriate for this site, better than apartments or
rental units. Mr. Jones said that neighbors felt confident that the situation gravel lot in
violation would be rectified.
Mr. Finley asked about the parking lot with the new buildings was a concern.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 31
Mr. Jones responded that if the fence is erected and set back, it would be acceptable. He said
that a six-foot fence would be acceptable.
Ms. Molly Dameron addressed the Commission, stating that a professional building would be
more desirable than additional residential. She added that they would also like curb and
gutter so that basement is not flooded. Ms. Dameron asked where the fence would need to be
placed.
Mr. Rooker informed her that there is no setback restriction for a fence, so it would have to
be specified in conditions.
Ms. Dameron said it would also be helpful to have some trees on the residential side of the
fence to buffer out the sound and the construction noise.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Finley said, "We congratulate you, Mr. Matthews, and your partners for such good
communication with your neighbors. You've come 180 degrees from last time."
Mr. Thomas said he feels the proposal is a good infill project and a good use of this parcel,
and said he also approves of the plan to connect parking lots. He added that all residential
occupants are in agreement with what the developer wants to put in, and agreed with them
that an office complex would be better. Mr. Thomas emphasized the importance of the fence
and the trees as buffer.
Ms. Hopper asked about drainage problems and possibility of curb and gutter.
Mr. Wade replied that during the site review, curb and gutter would be addressed.
Mr. Glenn Brooks said that curb and gutter is not a requirement for the site review process,
but Engineering would require either that the drainage be managed or be directed back
towards the property. "They could do that by grading that area so it drains the other
direction, or they could provide curb and gutter and pipe it back the other way, or they could
direct it to the site that they're currently developing.... Our review would extend only to
ensuring that the drainage doesn't damage the neighbors."
Mr. Cilimberg said the curb and gutter matter pertains to the violation parking lot, and
emphasized that the owner will have to file for an amendment to their site plan; in that
amendment, they would have to reconstruct the parking lot to meet drainage requirements,
and that could be done through curb and gutter or through grading.
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "That can't be something that applies to the conditions of
approval for this application."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 32
Mr. Cilimberg agreed, adding that the Commission could specify curb and gutter for this
application's parking lot.
Mr. Rieley asked if there is storm sewer along Hydraulic on the side where the property is.
Mr. Brooks replied that there is.
Ms. Hopper asked if there is a drainage problem onto Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Steven Snell of Engineering said he did not notice a drainage problem, but he did not
visit the site at a rainy site. He added that there seemed to be more of a grading problem with
the new lot, and all the drainage is going toward the neighbors' property from the back lot.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was a storm gutter on that side of Hydraulic Road last year.
Mr. Brooks replied that there is a culvert in back of the sidewalk, and along the curb line
there is not a drop inlet on the road side.
Mr. Finley asked if the parking circulation was different than a situation where cars are
backing into the lane and pulling up and down.
Mr. Brooks said engineering views the site more or less like a long parking lot. "I think
what's unusual about this site is that they didn't have direct access onto a public road, but
considering the circumstances, it's very rare that we can say a situation is ideal."
Mr. Loewenstein noted that the elevation in the existing lot is different in grade than the lot
that will be constructed, and asked what the approximate difference in the grade would be.
He commented that the grade change causes him some concern.
Mr. Brooks responded that he did not see that as a problem. He explained that the ordinance
stipulates a 10% grade upper limit on travelways that connect parking areas travelways;
within the parking areas themselves, the travelway grade limit is 5%.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be a requirement that the travelway was marked off.
Mr. Brooks replied that there is no such requirement, although the striping for the spaces
tends to do that.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how long the distance is from the travel way between the lots.
Mr. Brooks responded that it is approximately 40-50 feet.
Mr. Finley asked what the contour interval is on the map, noting that the back of the parking
lot is the same elevation as traversing the new parking lot. He asked Mr. Brooks if the spaces
themselves can be on a 10% grade.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 33
Mr. Brooks replied that the ordinance requires that the spaces themselves be no more than
2% grade along the space, and 5% grade along the travelway.
Mr. Rieley said he agreed with a lot of what Mr. Thomas said, and is sympathetic to the
general approach of the project, but has serious concerns. "It seems to me it's entirely too
intensive a use for this particular piece of property." Noting the applicant's comment that
their intent was to simply "transfer" the same use from next door to this property, Mr. Rieley
emphasized that the proposed buildings cover about 16% of the lot area, whereas the building
next door covers only 8%. "This is not only twice as intensive as the existing zoning allows,
but it's twice as intensive as the use next door that we're supposed to be matching. I think
this is really overloading this lot."
Mr. Rieley expressed additional concern that there just hasn't been enough design work on
the property to answer a lot of questions needed in order to make a sound decision on this.
He said that it is important to have information regarding the massing of buildings, the
impact on the surrounding neighborhood, etc. "There is not enough information yet in order
for us to make those determinations. Certainly if we are going to put something in motion
that is going to require a waiver of a grading setback line, we don't even know what that's
going to mean yet, and yet we will have approved by this zoning something that makes it
absolutely inevitable, and we will have no choice when it comes up later."
Mr. Rieley said that the materials the Commission has received relative to the application
have been appalling — out of scale, fuzzy maps, illegible contour intervals, etc. "I am
sympathetic to the use, but not at this level of intensity, and not without some notion that in
making a change of this magnitude in the zoning, we don't have any idea what we're getting
as a result of it because we simply don't have enough information to go on."
Mr. Rieley concluded, "I would like to be able to support it in a state in which it has a better
level of resolution."
Mr. Rooker asked staff if the waiver is not granted and the other actions were, what
discretion the Commission has with respect to waiver request.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that when it is before the Commission, the applicant will be asking
to grade and replant; if that is not granted, that would probably mean retaining walls so that
existing natural vegetation can be maintained.
Mr. Rooker asked to what extent is that a ministerial decision as opposed to a legislative
decision.
Mr. Kamptner said that the decision will be a ministerial action on the Commission's part,
but they may have authority to impose conditions to address the impacts of granting the
waiver.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that in previous cases, the Commission has imposed conditions
when granting a waiver.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 34
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Rieley, but commented that it may be a little bit unfair to
expect the applicant to have all desired information because he was not aware of the level of
information needed until too late. He suggested imposing a series of conditions that would
address concerns expressed. Mr. Rooker said that he was also impressed by the opinion of
surrounding property owners that they would prefer this kind of development on property as
opposed to residential. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Rieley if it would be acceptable to address his
concerns through conditions.
Mr. Rieley said that while it would be possible, "we're going to be designing it on the fly,"
because not enough thought has gone into the planning yet.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think we're asking to say yes to too much too soon. We really don't
have enough information about what this will be like....one of my biggest concerns is that we
don't know enough about this to say yes." He added that, "There is a lot here to grapple with
that I don't want to have to grapple with at the last moment." Mr. Loewenstein said that he
was unsure that imposing conditions was the right way to fix the problems associated with
the proposal.
Mr. Rooker suggested reducing the proposed square footage of floor area to 9,000, and said
that conditions could address fencing and screening, etc.
Mr. Finley asked that all Commissioners be heard before discussing conditions.
Mr. Craddock said he concurs with Mr. Thomas, as the neighbors' concern was regarding the
older property, which has been addressed. He mentioned that he does have concerns about
the grading, but is leaning towards approval.
Mr. Rooker asked if he was in agreement with the proposed density.
Mr. Craddock replied that he agrees with whatever density the Commission wants to allow.
Mr. Rooker mentioned Mr. Rieley's concerns related to density, and asked Mr. Craddock if
he agrees with the applicant, or whether the density could be adjusted.
Mr. Craddock asked how big the buildings would be.
Ms. Hopper noted that the house is an estimated 4,000 square feet, depending on whether the
basement was finished.
Mr. Loewenstein said he got the impression that the 12,500 square feet mentioned in the staff
report was the minimum the applicant wanted to achieve.
Mr. Wade said that's initially what the applicant had planned, but in further discussion it
became evident the house had not been surveyed; if the house's basement is finished, that
would make the total square footage 14,000.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 35
Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was a minimum square footage that would be acceptable to
the applicant.
Mr. Wade replied that a minimum acceptable size had not been discussed.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested that would be a good place to start.
Ms. Hopper agreed with Mr. Thomas that having the property developed to be a set of
professional offices — especially considering the neighbor's feelings — is a "reasonable way to
infill." She explained her concerns about density, stating that it should be a comparable
density to the offices next to it, especially for continuity. Ms. Hopper said she is also
concerned that the whole lot would be cleared to accommodate the building. She added,
"I'm very pleased that the neighbors have been taken into account and the fences to protect
them." Ms. Hopper said she would not approve it as presented, and wondered if deferral
would be an option.
Mr. Finley said that he agrees with Mr. Thomas, adding that he is not sure if legally the
applicant is surpassing density or not. "That existing building is very big, and [if] you push
these two new ones together ... I don't think it's any bigger."
Mr. Rieley commented, "It's just sitting on a lot smaller piece of land."
Mr. Finley agreed that the waiver should be denied, but said he would support the ZMA and
SP as Mr. Thomas suggested.
Mr. Thomas said the application is not a typical example of sprawl, and is in the growth area.
He added that to not cause sprawl, "We should develop more intensely in our growth area."
Mr. Rieley said that normally, he would agree, but this area is a little different because of the
established character of the area, with a setting of the professional buildings in a forested
setting. He said that adding a strip that is all roof and paving in the midst of this wooded area
is not going to enhance the area. Mr. Rieley said that while he is not inclined to move the
application forward, if the density can be lowered, and conditions could be crafted to address
the biggest concerns, he would be willing to support it.
Mr. Finley asked what the biggest concerns are.
Mr. Thomas said grading is a concern.
Mr. Rieley said that grading is a concern, there should be preservation of some of the trees on
the site, and there should be some assurance if the zoning is changed and density is increased,
"we're going to end up with something that is an asset to this area." He recalled in past
projects utilizing the expertise of the design planner and the guidelines for the Entrance
Corridors as a mechanism to help guide the architectural character of an area even if it wasn't
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 36
in an Entrance Corridor. Mr. Rieley suggested implementing those mechanisms on this
project as well.
Mr. Rooker suggested limiting the square footage to 9,000 square feet.
Mr. Loewenstein said there's no point in discussing the limitation unless the applicant feels
it's acceptable.
Mr. Rieley said that if the applicant doesn't feel it's acceptable, the property could stay at its
existing level.
Mr. Matthews re -addressed the Commission, and said he understands the Commission's
concern. He emphasized that "medical office density is not a matter of square footage, it's a
matter of parking. The site plan that we showed you has a 4,000 square foot single -story
building hooked onto a house, but we can't use the second floor." He added that his research
shows there is almost no basement in the house. "We need 48 or so [parking] spaces for
these two dental practices."
Mr. Rooker commented, "The parking necessary is somewhat a function of the office space
being offered, is it not?"
Mr. Matthews replied, "It's more a function of not so much the square footage, but the fact
that in primary care the turnover is so high. Trip generation numbers we throw out the
window. I assume we could meet county parking requirements pretty easily on this site, and
it would be less than what we're showing."
Ms. Hopper asked if the parking is what would be required for two dentists, and asked if they
would be leasing offices to other dentists.
Mr. Matthews responded that his understanding is they would not lease the other offices.
Ms. Hopper agreed that it was the parking that was flattening the site.
Mr. Matthews said it's not the fact that they need that much parking, but the fact that county
standards in a rolling area are extraordinarily flat.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Matthews has the power to accept a reduction of square footage.
Mr. Matthews said that the present use/need is 12,500 square feet.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the zoning will run with the land, and if the dentists did not
build the site out, something else could be built to the stipulated size.
Mr. Matthews pointed out that future users are restricted to professional office uses, and due
to the proffers and conditions, the property would revert back to R-4 if it were not developed.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 37
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the 12,500 square feet is figured based on a 3,000 square foot
existing house, plus a 4,000+ square foot building next to the house, plus a 2-story building
at the front of the property with 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Rooker said there's nothing in the application that limits the use of those buildings to
those two dentists.
Mr. Matthews said that the house will probably be used for storage, etc. "We can't unzone
the house."
Mr. Finley asked if the condition currently stating 14,000 square feet maximum were
removed, if it would limit the size to 12,500.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would be held to whatever maximum the Commission stipulated and
the Board agreed to.
Will be limited to according to development plan, two buildings footprint and parking area,
would be maximum.
Mr. Loewenstein noted, "There's nothing in the condition that prevents them from removing
the existing house."
Mr. Rooker said a subsequent owner could remove the house and put up a single building of
14,000, or two buildings of 7,000 square feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said the last condition would limit an applicant to developing according to the
plan described.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Matthews how he felt about what had been discussed.
Mr. Matthews said the waiver is a problem, and he would be willing to come back to the
Commission after surveying and site planning had been done. He said he could not conceive
of a different way to address all concerns about the remainder of the application.
Mr. Rooker asked staff if they were to approve the application, and change the density to a
level the applicant does not want to except, if the application could be withdrawn.
Mr. Cilimberg said even if the Board approved the application with limitations, the applicant
could choose not to exercise it, which would put it back to R-4 zoning.
Mr. Rieley asked where the conditions would reside.
Mr. Rooker said that the conditions would run with the special use permit.
Mr. Rooker offered some suggested language for the conditions:
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 38
He suggested changing Condition #7 to 9,000 square feet density, as the proposed size seems
to have the biggest impact on problems associated with site.
He suggested changing Condition #5 to state that screening shall exceed that required by
Section 32.7.98 according to the discretion of the design planner, and suggested adding to the
end of the sentence the phrase "and of the landscaping of the property along Hydraulic
Road."
He suggested a condition stating that there will be a wooden infill fence built between the
subject property and adjoining residential properties of at least 6 feet of height, with
screening vegetation planted along residential side of that fence.
He suggested adding a condition that the site would be developed in a manner so as to
preserve as many existing trees throughout the site as is reasonably possible consistent with
the development of the property according to the conditions set forth herein.
Mr. Kamptner asked if he wanted some Planning staff oversight of the tree preservation
process.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned previous use of a condition that a conservation plan shall be
submitted at time of site plan.
Mr. Rooker agreed to ad that as part of the condition.
Ms. Hopper suggested adding a statement that particular attention be paid to tree preservation
along Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Loewenstein said he got the impression it wasn't going to be possible to preserve any
trees in front.
Mr. Rieley said that immediately adjacent to the sidewalk under the power line, that's true,
but coming back 20 feet on the slope, there are trees that can be preserved.
Mr. Rieley suggested including language that the massing materials and configuration of
buildings be in harmony with the existing complex, subject to review of the design planner.
He clarified that he meant the buildings on the site adjacent to the north.
Mr. Kamptner asked for clarification of Condition #5, stating that the second clause speaks to
the waiver which the applicant is withdrawing, and should be removed.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is just allowing a waiver to be considered. He suggested changing
the wording to "may be requested" instead of "is permitted."
Mr. Finley said he does not have any problem with the conditions, except for the 9,000
square foot limitation.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 39
Mr. Rooker said that the 9,000 creates a density that is still greater than the density on the
adjoining property. "I think the negative environmental and aesthetic affects are largely a
result of the density being proposed."
Mr. Finley asked if the 3,000 square feet would make that much difference.
Mr. Rieley responded, "Well, it's hooked to the parking, and as the building square footage
goes down, the parking square footage goes down."
Ms. Hopper said she was uncertain from the applicant how much parking he did need.
Mr. Rooker suggested limiting the parking to that which is required by the code for
professional offices of this square footage.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the code provides for 1 parking space for 200 square feet of net
office area.
Mr. Finley said he did not feel comfortable just grabbing out a number of 9,000 square feet.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that he did not feel comfortable with a lot of this. "It's pretty
clearly I think a case of not only piecemeal planning work, but [also] under the gun." He
said that while the changes to the conditions help, it is difficult to try to make these decisions
without enough information. "I think the fact that we're having to do this is an indication of
i%w the work that this still needs." He added, "This isn't good planning."
Mr. Rooker said that the 9,000 square feet is no more random than the 14,000 square feet
from the applicant. "I think what we should grant is something... that would make that site
consistent with the commercial property that is next to it which it proposes to be a part of."
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Loewenstein that it is difficult to try to fashion conditions that
address the concerns, but the only alternative is to vote against the application in its entirety,
and the surrounding property owners agree that a nice commercial property is desirable on
the site.
Ms. Hopper said that her calculations based on Mr. Kamptner's information regarding
parking show 45 parking spots, and there are 50 parking spots shown.
Mr. Rieley said that if 1 space for 200 square feet is required, the plan doesn't meet the
ordinance because it doesn't have enough parking.
Mr. Wade commented, "It hasn't been reviewed through the site plan process."
Mr. Rieley said that, "That is exactly the problem....we approve this with 12,500 square feet
or 14,000 and then they have to find enough room to put the parking in there, and it blitzes
the site even more."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 40
Mr. Finely said, "The problem is to me, we always talk about infill but we never get it." He
expressed concern that if the property goes back to R-4 with duplexes or apartments, nobody
wants them.
Mr. Rieley commented, "You can't do much in the way of apartment buildings with three
additional building rights."
Mr. Rieley said he shares Mr. Loewenstein's concern about the way this is being planned.
Noting one of the earliest concerns raised regarding the proximity of the parking to Hydraulic
Road relative to the parking next door, Mr. Rieley suggested adding a condition that says
parking will be no closer to Hydraulic Road than the parking on the adjacent property
currently is.
Mr. Finley asked if there was a setback on parking.
Fellow Commissioners clarified that the setback is 10 feet.
Mr. Rieley said that the key is that the parking and adjacent building seem really close to
Hydraulic, and the thought of having parking twice that close is "pushing the envelope too
much."
Mr. Rooker said that lowering the building footprint may provide the latitude for
reconfiguration of the parking.
Mr. Rieley asked fellow Commissioners how they felt about the conditions as outlined by
Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Thomas said he would prefer 12,500 square feet instead of 9,000.
Mr. Finley agreed.
Mr. Rooker said that the 9,000 square feet is an attempt to make it consistent with the total
square footage (as a percentage of the site size) on the adjacent property.
Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Finley on the square footage.
Ms. Hopper said she agrees with the conditions, including the 9,000 square feet.
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Craddock seconded approval of ZMA 99-14 with the
proffer as presented. The motion passed in a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Loewenstein dissenting.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-067 with the twelve
conditions as outlined:
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 41
1.
All new structures and parking shall conform to Sections 21.7.1, 21.7.2 and 21.7.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2.
The applicant shall provide a sight distance of 425', as required by VDOT, at the existing
entrance to the professional offices on Hydraulic Road (Route 743).
3.
In addition to Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lighting shall be
arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away
from adjacent streets.
4.
SP 78-09 for a day care center on this property is revoked.
5.
Setbacks for new structures shall be as described in Section 21.7, except a waiver to
permit grading and clearing in the 20' setback adjacent to the parking/travelways on the
south side of the site (adjacent to Old Oak Court) may be requested for the purpose of
construction of the travelways and parking. Screening shall exceed that required by
Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance according to the discretion of the Design
Planner and existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements will be
supplemented or replaced as deemed appropriate by the Design Planner to provide good
screening for the adjacent residential district and along Hydraulic Road. No portion of
the permanent parking or travelways shall encroach on the 20' setback.
6.
If the existing house on site is removed and replaced with a new structure, the new
structure shall be governed by setbacks per Section 21.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
7.
Total buildings on site shall not exceed 9,000 square feet of floor area.
8.
The site shall be developed in general accordance with the concept plan known as
Hydraulic Dental Center Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 by Muncaster Engineering
dated 12/20/99. Locations of buildings, parking, and travelways are approximate and
may change but indicate the general intent for site use and density.
9.
A wooden fence shall be built between the subject property and the adjoining residential
properties of at least six (6) feet in height. Screening vegetation shall be planted on the
residential side of the fence.
10.
The site shall be developed in a manner so as to preserve as many existing trees
throughout the site as is reasonably possible consistent with the development of the
property according to the conditions set forth herein. A conservation plan for the existing
trees shall be submitted at the time of preliminary site plan submittal. Particular attention
shall be paid to tree preservation and screening along Hydraulic Road.
11.
Massing materials and building configuration shall be in harmony with the existing
complex on the site adjacent to the north, and shall be subject to the review of the Design
Planner.
12. Parking shall be no closer to Hydraulic Road than the parking lot at the existing office
complex on the site adjacent to the north.
The motion failed in a 3-4 vote, with Mr. Rieley, Mr. Rooker, and Ms. Hopper voting in favor of the
SP, and Mr. Finley, Mr. Loewenstein, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Craddock voting against the motion.
Mr. Finley asked said the Commission should keep the recommendation to deny, or entertain a
motion to reconsider.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded a motion to reconsider of ZMA 99-14. The
motion passed unanimously.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 42
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the proffer associated with the ZMA keeps the property as it is unless the
special use permit for offices is exercised. "If you don't approve a special use permit for offices, the
rezoning hasn't done anything."
Mr. Rooker said he was uncomfortable leaving the rezoning, given that the SP did not pass.
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of ZMA 99-14 with the proffer as
presented. In a 3-4 vote, with Mr. Thomas, Mr. Finley, and Mr. Craddock voting in favor, and Mr.
Loewenstein, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Rieley, Ms. Hopper voting against, the motion failed.
Hydraulic Dental Center — Waiver pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 21.7.3 to permit grading
and clearing in the twenty -foot buffer area. This waiver would permit only grading and clearing in
the buffer area as needed for the construction of the travelways and parking. The applicant will
provide screening according to Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant withdrew his request for the waiver.
The Commission took a brief recess.
(Mr. Loewenstein left the meeting.)
The Commission reconsidered the Hydraulic Dental Center items after discussion and vote on
SUB 99-264. The final vote is included here for continuity.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded a recommendation to reconsider item SP 99-
067. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-067 with the 12 conditions
as earlier established. The motion for approval passed in a 4-2 vote, with Mr. Rooker, Mr. Rieley,
Mr. Thomas and Ms. Hopper voting in favor, and Mr. Finley and Mr. Craddock voting against.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded a recommendation to reconsider item ZMA
99-14. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of ZMA 99-14 with the proffer as
presented. The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 99-264 Deerwood Phase II Preliminary Plat
Request for preliminary plat approval for a cluster development to create 76 single-family detached
lots on 24.46 acres. The property is zoned R-4 Residential. Described as Tax Map 32C-03-02, the
property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Deerwood Road, Route 150,
approximately 0.2 miles from the intersection of Deerwood Drive and Route 649, Airport Road. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as neighborhood density in the Hollymead
Development Area.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 43
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, explaining that this is a request for a cluster
` 00 development on 24.46 acres near the airport — 75 lots are requested for single-family
detached housing; 6 %2 acres is proposed for open space, which is planned to generally
surround the development, as well as exist in the center of the development. She noted that a
road profile of curb, gutter, asphalt paths and street trees is proposed; the applicant has
verbally committed to street trees, which needs to be a condition of approval. Ms. Echols
said a private road has been requested near the common open space; it crosses the stream,
which is the preferable alternative to several culverts over the stream. On a map presented,
she pointed out the private road, which would serve 5 lots in the common open space.
She mentioned that minor changes are needed to the preliminary plat to meet approval
requirements, which are shown in the staff report; included with the changes is a
modification of the road profile show street trees within the planning strip. Ms. Echols said
there is a citizen request Planning Commission review of the plat for transportation, trees
being left in the development, and a road interconnection. She pointed out three planned
road interconnections, which all go to a single point of access — Deerwood Drive at Airport
Road. Ms. Echols reported that staff spoke with the applicant about getting another access
point — taking Lupine Drive over to Route 606, but the applicant said that the right-of-way
would be difficult to get, and upon investigation staff agrees.
Ms. Echols stated that another interconnection is proposed, which would go between Lots #9
and #10, and cross the stream to the adjacent property. She said that is being "stubbed out"
for a true interconnection with the adjoining process. Ms. Echols noted that there are a lot of
trees on the site now, many of which would have to be removed; however, not a lot of
grading is needed as the site is relatively flat. She mentioned that an existing sewer line in
place, and staff is recommending that a nature path be taken around the development over the
line. Ms. Echols said that the wet areas are left alone on the plat, as are 6 %2 acres of open
space, making the development more environmentally friendly than what was shown on the
original plat. She concluded that staff is recommending approval of the plat with the
conditions as outlined.
Mr. Finley asked if there is a flood plain on the creek.
Ms. Echols replied that a flood analysis was done for the site, which was used in the
development of the location of lots and the private road. She added that a single culvert
crossing the creek is what's being proposed now.
Mr. Rooker noted that the reason the plat was brought before the Commission was because
an adjoining property owner requested that it be reviewed because of access considerations.
He asked if there was any alternative access possibility available to the applicant.
Ms. Echols responded that there are no existing parcels that the applicant owns that he could
use for access; Lupine Drive goes to the adjoining parcel, and could be aligned to line up
with driveway at the airport if the right-of-way were available. She confirmed that the
applicant is not in control of any other potential access to the property.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 44
Mr. Finley clarified that the neighbor's concern was that everything went to Deerwood
Drive.
Ms. Echols agreed, stating that staff shared this concern and tried to work it out; the applicant
is showing an interconnection in another location.
Noting that the property is zoned R-4 and could accommodate 98 lots, Mr. Rooker asked if
the applicant could create that amount instead of what is proposed.
Ms. Echols responded that the applicant's first plat had 62 lots on it with generally the same
road configuration using the minimum lot size requirement; she noted that it is the minimum
lot size that governs.
Mr. Rooker commented that with 25 acres of land with R-4 zoning, the minimum lot size
requirement shouldn't prevent the applicant from having four lots per acre.
Ms. Echols noted that open space, roads, wetlands, etc. take property out of potential
development. She confirmed that the applicant would not be required to have open space if
he didn't cluster the development.
Mr. Craddock asked if Deerwood Drive was private.
Ms. Echols replied that Deerwood Drive is public; the only private road is the one proposed
for the southwest section of the site.
Mr. Rieley said that sidewalks and trails had been discussed, and asked Ms. Echols to
comment as to where they would be located.
Ms. Echols responded that along both sides of the street there would be an asphalt path
between the curb and the lot; there would be a green strip between the curb and the asphalt
path, and on the other side of the path would be the houses with required setback. She noted
the location of the wood chip nature trail on the map.
Mr. Rooker asked if the asphalt path is really a sidewalk that is made out of asphalt, and
wondered why the county wouldn't require that it be made of concrete.
Ms. Echols replied that there are not currently specifications in the subdivision ordinance as
to when concrete should be used and when asphalt should be used.
Mr. Rooker asked who would be responsible for maintaining the asphalt sidewalk.
Ms. Echols said that the homeowner's association is responsible for sidewalk, and added that
VDOT has become more willing to maintain concrete sidewalks that adjoin a street.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the replacement of the asphalt path along Georgetown Road with a
concrete sidewalk, noting that concrete sidewalks are somewhat safer in terms of injury
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 45
occurrence. "If we don't have the power to require it, then I guess we don't have the power
to require it, but it's unfortunate if that's the case."
Mr. Rieley said, "We could certainly make it a condition, couldn't we?"
Mr. Kamptner commented, "The county engineer is vested with the authority to approve the
materials use for the sidewalks."
Ms. Echols emphasized that there is nothing in the ordinance that says you should do one or
the other.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission had the authority to request in the conditions that the
County Engineer consider stipulating use of concrete instead of asphalt.
Mr. Kamptner asked if this issue would be expressed in the design manual.
Ms. Echols said that DISC has looked into the issue of surface, and has not come out in favor
of one material over another.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that in some instances, asphalt is more appropriate; however, there is
a substantial safety and maintenance difference in concrete over asphalt.
Mr. Thomas suggested specifying concrete curb and gutters also.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Mr. Katorah Rowell addressed the Commission. He explained that he got the
concept for the sidewalk arrangement when he was visiting Cincinnati and noticed a nice
layout of street trees, paths, and sidewalks.
Mr. Rooker asked if what Mr. Rowell is proposing is less in width than if it were concrete.
Mr. Rowell replied that what he's proposing is actually wider.
Mr. Rooker commented, "So we're not going to have any less pavement under what you're
proposing."
Mr. Rowell emphasized that there would be less continuous pavement.
Mr. Rieley said, "Only if you change the concrete to come up right behind the curb. If you
leave the sidewalks where they are now, and simply change the material to something that's
more durable, it's fine." He added, "There's no reason why you couldn't leave it exactly
where it is and simply change the material to something else. Let's be honest. The reason
that this is shown as asphalt rather than concrete is that asphalt's a lot cheaper."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 46
Mr. Rowell replied, "I thought it was more attractive, and softer on the feet. But if it's going
to be up against a curb, I would typically put in a concrete sidewalk."
Mr. Rieley said, "Nobody suggested that it be put up next to the curb except you."
Mr. Rowell said if the sidewalk were put there, then it would be in the VDOT right-of-way.
Ms. Hopper asked, "Are you saying the location of the sidewalk would change because
VDOT would require it, or because VDOT would help you maintain it."
Mr. Rowell responded, "VDOT would maintain it. It would not be a responsibility of the
homeowner's association." He confirmed that VDOT would not maintain asphalt.
Mr. Rooker commented that engineers have consistently said that the long-term maintenance
on asphalt is greater than concrete.
Mr. Rieley said that asphalt is only cost-effective in the short term.
Mr. Finley asked if the VDOT right of way is 40 feet.
Mr. Rowell replied that it is 44 feet on the Deerwood Drive extension, and the other two
roads are 40 feet.
Mr. Finley asked if the asphalt sidewalk begins five feet from the curb.
Mr. Rowell said it begins one foot from the right of way.
Mr. Rieley asked if the Commission approves the plan with concrete sidewalks, and county
engineering agrees, if the applicant has the option of eliminating the tree lawn and moving
the sidewalks into the back of the curb.
Mr. Kamptner said that the applicant could do this as long as he satisfies the requirements of
the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Rieley said what should be worked toward is a real sidewalk, with a real tree lawn, and it
should be standard.
Mr. Rieley commented that one reason given for difficulty in achieving this arrangement is
the relationship of the utilities to the tree lawn, sidewalk, and asked Mr. Rowell how that is
resolved in this plan.
Mr. Rowell said that the utilities are all underground services on the back of the sidewalk,
and are on easements on private property; on every other side lot, there will be a transformer
to serve pairs of homes, as well as sewer along the back and the green space. He added that
sanitary sewer is around perimeter of development, and in some places in the middle portion
of the development. Mr. Rowell said that they concurred with county engineering that one
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 47
single crossing be put into those four lots so as to reduce any backwater. He mentioned that
the private road will be maintained by the five lots it serves, not by the development as a
whole, and added that the homeowners would maintain the strip between the sidewalk and
curb. Mr. Rowell said the site contains a mixture of hardwoods, but the rest of it is a mix of
young pines.
Ms. Hopper asked if the path would be concrete, the area of trees would be eliminated.
Mr. Rowell said that if the path is to be made concrete, it would be moved to the curb so it
would all be in the VDOT right-of-way; a tree would then be required on the back side of the
sidewalk on each lot.
Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Echols if the street trees would be shown as a condition.
Ms. Echols responded that there are some changes made to the preliminary plat, and the
condition would state that it be shown on the profile as a notation on the plat. She explained
that #7 would be added to state that the road profile indicate street trees in the green strip.
Mr. Rieley asked if spacing would be specified.
Ms. Echols replied that spacing is generally worked out with VDOT, depending on sight
distance requirements, then establish where the street trees would go in relation to the
driveways.
Mr. Rieley mentioned that requested street trees once came back spaced 100 feet on center.
Mr. Rooker asked if the spacing would be subject to staff approval.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that it was standard.
Mr. Finley asked if VDOT approved the sidewalk abutting the curb.
Ms. Echols replied that the sidewalk path extending down to airport road is the only proffer
that came with the rezoning, and the applicant has not specified whether the path would be
concrete or asphalt.
Mr. Rowell said the configuration would become more clear after he submits road plans to
VDOT, as they will have an opinion about what would be put there.
Mr. Rooker clarified that the proffer only applied to Deerwood.
Mr. Thomas asked about the other points of access, asking if there would just be one entrance
and one exit.
Mr. Rowell said there is only one VDOT-allowed access point at Airport Road.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000
48
Mr. Thomas asked the applicant how he can build 75 lots with only one point of access.
Ms. Echols commented that there are three built roads that lead to the 75 lots; they all happen
to lead to the same point.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are three points of access for the new development, which was what
was allowed originally.
Mr. Craddock asked if more land would be taken if Deerwood Road were widened to 22 feet
from center.
Mr. Rowell said that there is a VDOT right-of-way in place.
Janet Dietz of 113 Lupine Lane addressed the Commission. She said her primary concern is
the one access onto Airport Road, as the road's present level of traffic makes it dangerous,
and said that adding buildings along Airport Road at the entrance onto Deerwood would
make it a double problem. Ms. Dietz said that the accesses being discussed, such as Lupine
Lane, may not have the right-of-way, and the other one has to cross the creek. She expressed
concern about the maintenance of the walking path. Ms. Dietz mentioned that there is
flooding now with the creek, and storm sewering will cause even more flooding.
%0, Mr. Rieley asked if the concerns had been passed on to engineering.
Ms. Echols responded that engineering is aware, and said that the flooding area has been
examined in depth. She added that the homeowners association would be charged with
maintenance of nature trail.
Mr. Thomas asked how much extra water would go into Powell Creek, and what has been
done downstream to compensate for the extra water.
Mr. Brooks stated that there is a conceptual stormwater management area shown on the plan,
which has been switched around a few times. He said that engineering had wanted it up
above the creek, because it presents problems when you try to capture the whole drainage
area of the creek on top of the drainage from the development; engineering had wanted to get
it before it entered the creek, but the details had not been worked out on it yet.
Mr. Rooker asked if engineering was comfortable that this would be handled so as to prevent
flooding of adjacent properties and flooding downstream.
Mr. Brooks said that the ordinance does not address flooding where there's not a
FEMA/floodplain or regulatory issue; it speaks to downstream runoff from an area in
detention. The runoff from the site is not supposed to increase during certain interval storm.
"We don't have regulation that reaches as far as guaranteeing that those lots right next to the
creek won't build basements ... if they wish to excavate and build lots in an area that use to be
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 49
a mass septic drainfield in a low spot, there's no regulation that says they can't do that." Mr.
Brooks added, "I can't guarantee you that all flooding problems will be solved ... our
ordinance only speaks to detention of runoff from impervious areas on the property and its
meant to protect downstream properties."
Mr. Rooker asked if controlling the runoff might prevent greater flooding downstream.
Mr. Brooks said that they are attempting to do this, but only within the parameters that the
county regulates — the 10-year storm.
Mr. Thomas commented, "All we can ask now is to retain it, slow it down from coming
downstream so fast."
Mr. Brooks said it's difficult in subdivisions, because all the drainage is not centralized.
Mr. Thomas said that the residential areas along Hydraulic Road used to flood North
Berkshire, with lots of houses being flooded. "That's the thing I'd like to see the county
avoid happening downstream because there's a lot of other construction planned down the
road."
Mr. Brooks said, "We'll do the best we can."
Jerome Ferrence of 113 Lupine Lane addressed the Commission, stating that he enjoys living
VAW in Deerwood, and is looking forward to the additional walking space. He stated his concern
about how the three exits come into the same Deerwood Drive that exits onto Airport Road.
He said that currently there are 57 houses with one egress that is already busy, and asked the
Commission to delay action on the item until the applicant is certain there is a second access.
Mr. Ferrence said that the applicant, to his knowledge, has not submitted: preliminary maps;
stormwater management information; sketch plans for utilities, bridges and culverts; and
statements of availability of services with the preliminary plat.
Mr. Rooker asked staff to comment on the items that were to be submitted.
Mr. Brooks said that the list of items to be shown with the preliminary plat are submitted
with some judgement by staff, and the conceptual plans and calculations were submitted with
the preliminary plat.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to clarify whether the application submitted contains the
items necessary and required by the ordinance.
Ms. Echols said that Mark Graham was the reviewing engineer, and requested additional
information; that plan was revised twice to show drainage improvements. "I believe that
the ... standard information we review was provided from the very beginning .... I think it's all
covered."
Mr. Brooks said engineering is also satisfied with the information submitted.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 50
'*001 Mr. Rooker said that the issue is whether the applicant met the ordinance requirements. He
said that the Commission does not have the power to require that the applicant have any
additional accesses, because he has three accesses to a public road — Deerwood. "It may or
may not be great planning to have this pipe stem situation in accesses, but in fact he has
several accesses to a public road ... we don't really have the power to require anything beyond
what's required by the ordinance, which he is meeting."
Mr. Brooks noted that the applicant was speaking to issues under Sections 14.304 and
14.305, and he believes those requirements have been met.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said despite concerns about drainage and flooding, this proposal is "one of the
better ones that we've seen," with the clustered arrangement of residences, the connection to
other streets in the neighborhood, and the prospect for greater connection, is a "huge
improvement over lots of arrangements we've seen in the past." He added that this is a "big
move in the right direction, and the kind of thing we should be working towards." Mr.
Rieley complimented staff and the applicant on crafting the plan.
Mr. Craddock asked about how many children were factored in to the resident population of
the proposed development.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the multiplier used is about %2 child per lot, depending on the
neighborhood.
Ms. Echols said that the children in the new development would go to Hollymead.
Mr. Rooker noted that the property was rezoned long ago for this purpose and was put in the
designated growth area.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that all area schools are near capacity, and if kids weren't here
they'd be somewhere else.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Northern Elementary School and two fire companies is planned
for that area.
Mr. Rooker commented that hopefully more development will go in growth areas instead of
rural areas, where provision of services is much more difficult.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SUB 99-264 and the private road
request with conditions as presented by staff, and an additional condition (#7) on the preliminary plat
approval that states "The road profile would indicate street trees in the green strip, with spacing
subject to staff approval," and a recommendation that county engineering strongly encourage a
switch from asphalt to concrete sidewalks with a tree lawn. The motion passed unanimously.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 51
Work Session
CPA 98-03 Post Office Land Trust/Theater
Request to study and amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for approximately 641 acres within
the Community of Hollymead (an existing development area), located on the west side of Route 29
North (Seminole Trail), south of Route 649 (Airport Road), east of Route 606 (Dickerson Road), and
north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. The applicant originally requested a change in land
use designation from Industrial Service to Commercial designation to permit to a movie theater
complex and other mixed commercial/office uses.
Given the length of the evening's meeting, Mr. Benish suggested giving an overview of the
information he provided, and scheduling another worksession to discuss the CPA in detail. He
explained that the outcome of the last worksession on the item yielded a general direction of
pursuing a Town Center type designation as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a general
type of new land -use designation, and pursue language for considering how that would be
implemented in the Hollymead development area.
Mr. Benish said that his staff report recommends that the county not pursue a new Town Center
designation at this time, based in part on the fact that DISC is reaching its conclusion, and hope to
have something ready by Spring for review. Some of the DISC recommendations may require
significant changes to the land use plan, and staff is cautious about making any iterative changes to
the Land Use Plan — creating a new district that may be obsolete in a year. Staff favors a more
traditional approach of being area -specific in recommendations for land uses and development
standards for the Hollymead area. Mr. Benish said staff has also provided a first draft at the specific
CPA language changes for the Hollymead profile recommendations, which is similar to the Brass,
Inc. issues and framework that implemented some DISC concepts of mixed use developments.
Mr. Benish reported that the Kessler Group has taken an option on an adjacent property and may be
interested in pursuing development of that site, and has been working with the applicant and staff for
a possible concept in this general area of development. One issue Commissioners raised earlier was
the feasibility of implementing this type of designation, given the multiplicity of property owners.
He said that having another property owner involved will increase the land area where there is an
active participant in the process.
Referencing a map presented, Mr. Benish explained the quadrant roughly designated Community
Service and Office Service in the Comprehensive Plan, approximately 125+ acres; staff has
recommended that CS/mixed use designation be used, re -designating the general area for those land
uses, focusing the uses on retail/office/residential mixed use. He noted that maximum square
footage for any individual user is 65,000 square feet, but does allow for retail, and mentioned that
the final staff recommendation is similar to that for Brass.
Mr. Benish explained the concept of a Town Center area to the west of the parallel road and east of
the stream that provides the boundary of the Deerwood development. The area between Route 29
and the proposed parallel road that is currently Regional Service is recommended to be left as RS.
Staff is also recommending an undisturbed wooded buffer area to remain between Route 29 and the
developed area. He mentioned that the higher density, more pedestrian -oriented mixed use area is
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 52
the area bound on one end by the proposed theater, with a "Main Street" design and a more
residential mix of uses.
Mr. Benish noted that the crossing route that ties into Deerwood is Timberwood Drive extended, and
the public road systems consists of Route 29 (limited access), the parallel roads, and a more
pedestrian road system that contains urban scale crossings. He mentioned that the roadway in the
central area of the property continues onto Airport Road and would intersect where a new crossover
had been proposed for the Value America headquarters; the concept for accommodating this area
and the area to the north have maintained the notion of creating a new crossover. He mentioned that
the stream valley area is recommended to be a border to the Community Service area, and would
include pedestrian trails, a bikeway, etc.
Mr. Finley asked if there would be residential development in the Regional Service area.
Mr. Benish responded that the Regional Service recommendations do suggest that residential
development may be appropriate, and also allows for office/employment uses.
Mr. Rowell addressed the Commission, noting on the map the Regional Service area which would
accommodate larger box -scale business activity.
Mr. Thomas asked what the buffer space would be.
Mr. Rowell said it would be 100 feet.
Mr. Rowell continued by pointing out some of the ownership of surrounding property. He said there
were 13 heirs on the multi -heir property, including Mr. Wood.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Regional Service designated area was currently zoned RS.
Mr. Benish confirmed that it is currently zoned Rural Areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said, "This is going to set that stage, though, if this goes off."
Mr. Benish noted that most everything south of the Virginia Land property is Rural Area.
Mr. Rowell mentioned his plan for traffic circles, fully landscaped with brick sidewalks and
crosswalks.
Mr. Rieley expressed his relief that they are not planned to be asphalt.
Mr. Finley asked about the total acreage for the developed area.
Mr. Rowell replied that approximately 150 acres total would be included.
Ms. Hopper asked him to point out on the map who owns what.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 53
Mr. Rowell explained that the piece of property at the back edge of Deerwood is under option by the
Kessler Group; Wendell Wood owns a frontage parcel; the heir piece is in the middle; Mr. Wood
owns another strip; and a trailer park is also in the area.
Mr. Frank Kessler addressed the Commission. He pointed out what parcels they have an option on,
and some of his group's ideas for a mix of office and residential.
Mr. Kessler commented that if you pull a concrete sidewalk away from the curb "it costs numbers"
because of VDOT requirements and maintenance. He added that if you pull it away from the curb,
VDOT's position is that you have to accommodate vehicular traffic across that. Mr. Kessler said
that it's preferable to have concrete adjacent to roads even if it is separated by a green strip; he added
that it is difficult to get street trees in the strip because it is typically where water lines are. "There
are difficulties in achieving those goals." Mr. Kessler said that there are liability issues if paths are
placed on private properties and not in public areas; one potential solution to that is to have a path in
common area parallel to the road, but the subdivision stipulates you must front the road.
Mr. Benish said that all streets in this area will be urban section sidewalks on both sides, 10 foot
minimum width sidewalks in the Main Street area, six feet elsewhere.
Mr. Finley asked what would be next in the process.
Mr. Benish responded that the Commission should read the staff information, and then come back
and discuss it further with staff prior to setting a public hearing. He said that they have met with
Forest Lakes and Hollymead residents, but additional public comment is needed.
Mr. Craddock asked how the people in Deerwood felt.
Mr. Benish replied that staff would like to have discussions with other development areas, such as
Deerwood, but the watchdogs so far have been the Forest Lakes community members. He stated
that staff wanted to make sure there was a concept articulated that could be presented to people.
Mr. Ferrence re -addressed the Commission. He expressed concern that a Town Center should be
located in the City of Charlottesville, and emphasized that people bought property out in his area
because they didn't want to live in the city. Mr. Ferrence also expressed concern that people are
continuously added, but the water supply is questionable.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the property in that area has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan
for high -density development for a long time.
Old Business
Mr. Cilimberg said there would be Resolution of Intent for the Subdivision Ordinance at their
February 8th meeting.
Mr. Rooker asked about the SP 99-68 Beverage Tractor item that was supposed to be heard on
January 25th. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it had to be re -advertised.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 54
Mr. Finley asked about the proposed resolution from Crozet regarding parking. Mr. Cilimberg said
that the Commission passed a resolution regarding reducing parking requirements, and can now
recommend to the Board changes to the parking requirements, including what has been suggested by
Mr. Mike Marshall in Crozet. It will be a Zoning Text Amendment.
New Business
Mr. Kamptner said that the Commission will be considering the wireless design manual next week,
and he will send out a brief memo on the case law that's interpreting the provisions of the
Telecommunications Act.
There being no further business, tl
Albemarle County Planning Commission — February 1, 2000 55