HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 05 1994 PC Minutes7-5-94
JULY 5, 1994
The Albemarle County'Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 5, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs
Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan.
Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Ms. Marsha Joseph, ARB Planner; and
Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Dotson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was
established. The,minutes of May 31, June 14, and June 21 were
unanimously approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP-94-022 Brown Toyota -Mercedes Benz Minor Site Plan Amendment -
Request for -modification of Section to allow one way
circulation and modification of Section 4.12.6.5 to allow angled
parking.
SDP-94-026 Wray Brothers Major Site Plan Amendment - Request for
mo i ion of Section 4.2-3.2 to allow disturbance of critical
slopes.
SDP-94-035 Advance Auto Major Site Plan Amendment - Request for
mo i ication of Section
The Commission expressed no concerns about any of these requests.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
SDP-94-006 - Carrsbrook Retail Center Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to locate approximately 111,464 square eet o retail
supported by approximately 660 spaces on 15.87 acres zoned HC,
Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. Properties,
described as Tax Map 45,-,Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 111A and 111B,
are located on the east side of Route 29 across from the Keglers
Bowling Center in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This
property is located in a designated growth area and is
recommended fof"Community Service (Urban Neighborhood 2).
Ms. Hipski presenibSd.the staff report. The report identified
three issues for Commission consideration:
(1) Architectural Review Board status (Two reviews have
taken place but preliminary approval for a Certificate of
Appropriateness has not been given);
7-5-94 2
(2) Modification of 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow grading on critical slopes; (It was staff's position that
given the detention basin, the vertical alignment change and
additional landscaping, this proposal should have a minimal
aesthetic resource loss." The ARB's concern was that "the
proposed grades do not tie into the non -critical slopes as well
as potential impact on the stream." The Engineering Department
had stated it could support the request.)
(3) Access to Route 29 (modification of 32.7.2.2 to allow
access point within 500 feet of a crossover; and 4.12.6.1 to
allow a one-way entrance).
Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions and subject
to the Commission's positive finding on the three modifications
described above.
It was determined that the Architectural Review Board had not
reviewed the plan before the Commission, which reflected the
applicant's compromise solution to Rt. 29 access. The plan showed
the following:
(1) Relocation of the northern entrance to provide joint
access to the undeveloped parcel to the north;
(2) The agreement to provide entrance design and
improvements, including signalization, to the access at the
crossover;
(3) A southern entrance located about 150 feet north of the
Sterotypes entrance, physically designed to allow one-way ingress
only and to preclude exit from the site.
Ms. Hipski confirmed that both staff and VDOT could support the
proposed compromise because, though "not ideal, staff opinion is
that the proposal is acceptable in terms of safety...."
Ms. Huckle asked why there could not be only one entrance to Rt,
29. Ms. Hipski replied that the Commission could take that
question up with the applicant. Mr. Niftchmann pointed out that,
from a safety standpoint in terms of emergency vehicle access,
more than one entrance was probably desirable.
At Ms. Imhoff's request Ms. Hipski pointed out the location of
the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Nitchmann asked for a
description of the walls.- Ms. Hipski explained that they would
be of varying height with a maximum of approximately 10 feet.
Mr. Nztchmann_was interested in knowing the standards for the
walls as he wa's"'concerned about the possibility that they would
not last if not constructed well. Mr. Blue felt this was a
question for the ap5�,Iicant's engineer, but he noted that it was
"standard engineering practice."
Ms. Imhoff asked about the plans for the stream, i.e. "is it
being boxed, is it being culverted, where does it go?" She was
concerned about the impact on downstream properties which have
I
7-5-94
ponds. Ms. Hipski explained that the stream would be "piped to
the detention pond and then released so that there will -be no
more runoff than before."
The Chair invited comment from Ms. Joseph, Planner for the ARB.
Ms. Joseph explained that the original plan presented to the ARB
was "similar to, but not quite like, the one in front of you --
different in the amount of and mass of the buildings." At the
first ARB review (February, 1994), the Chairman of the ARB had
expressed concern about the amount of grading and wondered if the
applicant had considered other grading schemes. At the
Chairman's request, Ms. Joseph had prepared 2 "rough" grading
plans for the site to see if it was feasible to re -grade the
site, differently. Her plans had determined that the grades at
the property lines could be met and still be able to get the
buildings and parking on the site. To do this, "you have to step
down the buildings, and break the buildings, with parking
provided in the rear and the side, and with the buildings being 2
stories." A second grading scheme had been one which saved the
stream, with retaining walls around the property, but lost 30% of
the building area. When these two plans had been presented at a
second meeting with the ARB, the applicant had decided he would
prefer to come before the Commission to receive their comments.
She again confirmed that the plan presently before the Commission
had not been reviewed by the ARB.
Mr. Blue asked Ms. Joseph what the applicant's reaction had been
to her "rough" plans. Ms. Joseph called attention to the ARB's
minutes, which had just been made available to the Commission.
Mr. Blue noted that the Commission had not had the opportunity to
read the minutes and was going to have to make a decision without
that information. (Ms. Imhoff interjected that the item could be
deferred to allow for more information from the ARB.) Ms. Joseph
recalled some of the applicant's comments had been about the non-
marketability'of buildings which are broken up, the need to see
the parking area so that it is evident that sufficient parking is
available,.and the added cost of moving dirt from off -site rather
than "scooping dirt on the site to fill in the hole." Mr. Blue
concluded that the applicant's concerns had been "commercial"
ones.
Mr. Nitchmann asked for a description of the stream. Ms. Joseph
replied: "It's a natural area that has been there for a long
time and succes"five growth shows that that forest has been there
for a while. It's some old oaks; it's in its final successive
stage of growth be'daL-�se you have some of the older oaks and
beeches and that is one of the final forests that you'll find
around here and it's all connected with the stream. It's a
picturesque little stream." The stream is considered to be a
perennial stream.
7--5-94 4
Ms. Imhoff asked if review of the grading plan was a part of the
ARB's ordinary review. Ms. Joseph replied affirmatively. Mr.
Blue commented: "So'what you're saying is that it is entirely
possible that the ARB would not give a Certificate of
Appropriateness for this project just based on the grading." Ms.
Joseph responded: "I think that's fair to say. We try to work
with the applicant as much as we possibly could if he felt this
was the best they could do, then we try to beef up in other
areas. We thought that we could mitigate some of the effects of
the grading."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis to comment on whether or not this
sequence of review is acceptable, i.e. Commission review prior to
the ARB's approval. Mr. Davis responded: "The Ordinance
envisions that you can give preliminary approval but not final
approval, prior to a Certificate of Appropriatness. The
consequence of that, however, would be if you gave preliminary
approval to a plan that was not satisfactory to the ARB, it may
require the applicant to come back before the Commission if those
changes are significant enough to be contrary to your preliminary
approval." Mr. Blue noted: "The applicant is aware of that so
obviously he is making that gamble."
Mr. Don Franco, representing the County Engineering Department,
offered to answer Commission questions. Ms. Huckle asked if
raising the grade in the center of the property would increase
the runoff to the east. Mr. Franco explained that filling in the
valley area would not increase runoff, rather, adding impervious
area to the site will increase runoff. He felt the two
detention ponds shown on the plan should result in no increase in
the peak runoff from the site (which is a County requirement).
He said the detention basins would be designed to the 10-year
storm standard and will be required to "be stable" during the
100--year storm. Ms. Huckle asked about inspection procedures.
Mr. Franco explained that construction inspection would not be
the responsibility of County staff. However, the Erosion Control
Officer will be inspecting the site. Once the basins are
installed,�there will be a requirement that a County standard
maintenance agreement be recorded and this will include the
requirement for yearly inspections by the owner of the property.
Whose inspections would then be submitted and reviewed by the
Department of Engineering. Ms. Huckle expressed knowledge of
detention basins which have "washed out because they were not
correctly constructed." It was noted that the County requires
that a Licensed -'Professional Engineer design the structures. Mr.
Franco explained the construction differences between the 10-year
and 100-year storm�,,i,.e. the 100-year dam will be higher and the
base wider. Mr. Nitchmann asked if a retention basin would be
required at the beginning of the construction process. Mr.
Franco could not answer definitely but was of the opinion that
would probably be the case since it is more than likely that the
detention basin will double as an erosion control measure, in
Al
7-5--94
5
which case it will have to be the first thing that is put in
place, before any other construction activity occurs.
Ms. Buckle asked where the water would go which leaves the
eastern detention basin. Mr. Franco explained that it would
return to the natural stream (after having been diverted through
the site by a pipe system).
Ms. Imhoff asked if there are any restrictions on the amount of
impervious cover allowed. She felt the site was "maxed out."
Mr. Keeler explained that the maximum impervious cover provisions
had been repealed in 1984 with the adoption of the landscape
provisions.
In response to Mr. Blues question, Mr. Franco confirmed that the
plan meets the County's standards for preliminary approval. He
also confirmed that the County would not issue final approval
until the final plan meets County standards. Mr. Blue concluded:
"I understand why some Commissioners are worried, but I think we
are trying to second guess the experts."
Ms. Imhoff agreed that the Engineering questions would be
addressed by the appropriate staff. She felt the question before
the Commission was whether to allow this particular site design
or find that, because of questions about the plan, the applicant
should continue to work on the plan.
Ms. Buckle asked about the area noted as "existing wetlands"
which was covered by parking area. Mr. Franco explained that .8
acre was delineated by the Corps of Engineers and the applicant
received, previously, approval to disturb that wetland area. The
permit is still applicable for this plan.
The applicant was first represented by Mr. Dave Walsh, Engineer
for the project. He expressed support for the staff report and
offered to answer Commission questions.i Answers to various
questions were as follows: 7
--The,applicant chose to proceed with the Commission review
so that the process could be "moving along." Mr. Walsh explained
that it has been his experience that it often takes a long time
to resolve issues with the-ARB.
---Another issue before the ARB had been the number of
entrances, which has a significant impact on the design of the
property. The applicant felt that issue needed to be resolved
(by the Commission) before discussions with the ARB can continue.
--The stream,cannot remain as it presently exists.
--The ARB's g ing plan did meet the grades at the edges of
the property but it would raise the buildings 10 to 20 feet which
would result in them being much more visible to the residential
properties (though they would actually be farther away from
residences). This plan would have also created some safety
issues caused by the mixture of pedestrian traffic; with truck
,5�
7-5-94 6
traffic. (Ms. Imhoff felt it should be possible to address this
concern by locating loading areas separate from customer parking
areas.) The plan would have also required bringing in fill dirt
which would be six times more costly.
--Lower retaining walls might be possible, but would result
in an unbalanced site, i.e. in the earth work.
Ms. Huckle asked if the developer carried any type of insurance,
or could offer any guarantee, that any damage which might occur
to downstream properties, as a result of failure of the detention
basins, would be covered. Mr. Walsh could not answer definitely
because he was not familiar with the requirements of the
maintenance agreements. Mr. Blue noted that there is always
recourse through the court system.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Walsh if he felt all possible
consideration had been given to both safety and economic issues
in the development of the proposed layout. He also asked if the
applicant realized that the Commission's action, whatever it
might be, would not change the necessity for ARB approval. Mr.
Walsh indicated he understood there would still be outstanding
issues, but stated that at least the issue of the entrances and
the permission to allow grading would have been addressed.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that it was his understanding that the
ARB's discussion about tying into existing contours is not to
protect the residential areas, but rather to address aesthetic
issues from Rt. 29. He pointed out that a lower site would
result in the service areas at least being out of sight of the
residential areas.
Mr. Wendall Wood, the applicant, addressed the Commission. His
comments included the following:
--No progress has been made, in the two meetings with the
ARB, in relation to the stream going through the property. Some
ARB members indicated they would only approve a plan which leaves
the stream in its natural state, which is not possible. Any
development of the property will require some type of
modification to the stream. "This stream is not designated as a
stream of significant aesthetic value" in the Ordinance.
--To keep the grade --of the land consistent with the
adjoining property (as proposed in one of Ms. Joseph's grading
schemes), the buildings would be 2-story buildings which would
have to drop 12 feet almost immediately after entering the
building. Thi's`is not a marketable design. The handicapped
requirements canngt be met in this type of design.
--The goal is`tp,move as little dirt as possible. Importing
dirt to raise the site will result in this development "looking
down into Carrsbrook and Woodbrook," which will certainly not be
acceptable to the residents of those communities.
Thenoisefactor to those areas will also be greatly increased.
L
7-5-94 7
Importing dirt is six times more expensive and achieves nothing
for anyone.
It was Ms. Imhoff's understanding from the ARB minutes that the
main issues of contention were (1) the number of entrances, (2)
retention or non -retention of the stream, (3) the degree of
grading, and (4.) the number of buildings. (Mr. Wood did not
recall that the number of buildings had been an issue.) She was
of the impression that Mr. Wood's primary concern was being able
to achieve a certain square footage. She concluded. "It seems
that staff did a very rough plan, (for their benefit, but) it
seems to me there may be some room to move towards an agreement
with the ARB if wq could at least clarify the issue of the number
of entrances and the stream." Mr. Wood responded; "That's
correct and that's the reason we're here." Ms. Imhoff noted that
there is also the issue of the grading modification, which she
was "disinclined to support at this point." She did not feel the
applicant had exhausted his remedies in this respect. Mr. Wood
disagreed --he felt all possibilities had been explored and this
present plan was the result.
Mr. Blue pointed out that the ARB had not yet seen this current
plan.
Mr. Blue asked if any attempt had been made to get support for
this plan from the neighborhood associations. Mr. Wood indicated
he had not been in contact with the neighborhoods but it was his
understanding from Ms. Hipski that staff had received some verbal
comments indicating that this plan is preferrable to the original
plan. [Mr. Wood pointed out that the plans for development of
this property have been on -going for the past three years. He
said he had attended a meeting in a Woodbrook residence with
approximately 20 people present. He did not state the date of
the meeting.]
Mr. Blue asked if Mr. Wood felt the AR& was "seriously striving
to protect the aesthetic value of Rt. 29 or are they trying to
prevent this development from taking place, period?" Mr. Wood
responded. "I think there has been, on this site for 3 years, a
concerted effort to find a way to not let it happen." Mr. Blue
was aware of the long history of this property and felt that the
applicant's position should be a part of the record.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that one of Ms. Joseph's plan had included
putting the stream in the culvert, so "saving the stream was not
an issue." She felt it was a matter of "the appropriateness and
the extent of the §wing and the location of the buildings being
so close to the residential areas." She did not think there was
any indication the ARB would not cooperate since their staff has
provided alternatives.
7-5-94
0
Ms. Imhoff noted that there have been many developers who have
worked well with the ARB and many feel that the ARB's role has
helped improve a lot of development. She pointed out that the
ARB minutes provide a clear record of what took place at those
meetings. -
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Wood to comment on the two grading plans
developed by Ms. Joseph. Mr. Wood responded: "One of the plans
left the stream uncovered and that reduced the overall
developability of the site --we lost about 4 acres out of a 15
acre site, which, economically, makes the project unfeasible.
The other one has the difference in elevations of the buildings
(which we feel will not work) because tenants will not be able to
use the buildings and it conflicts with your own ordinance which
directs that service traffic and pedestrian traffic be kept
separate."
Mr. Wood felt this plan would be more acceptable to the ARB.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Michael Bates, President of the Carrsbrook Homeowners
Association addressed the Commission. He objected to the use of
the Carrsbrook name in the name of this shopping center. (Mr.
Keeler explained that the County Ordinance does not regulate the
names of commercial developments. Mr. Blue felt any developer
would be receptive to changing a name if it would gain public
support.) He also was of the impression that this plan shows an
access crossing Lot 1, Section E, (to the north of this site)
which is zoned residential. He stated this would "compromise the
Carrsbrook deed restrictions" which say that that lot can be used
for residential purposes only. (Mr. Keeler stated that the
property referred to is zoned CO on the County Zoning Map, but if
Carrsbrook has a deed restriction on that lot, it is a private
matter between Carrsbrook and the applicant. Ms. Hipski added
that the property in question is zoned both CO and residential
but it was her belief that the accessway referred to by Mr. Bates
was entirely on the CO portion of the property.) Mr. Bates
stated the primary concern was that the stream be protected as it
was felt to be "significant" stream by the property owners. He
stated his intention to have the water quality of the ponds
tested periodically during and after construction. He also
expressed concerns about noise and light pollution.
Mr. Frank Rice`,"`a Carrsbrook resident, addressed the Commission.
He was of the opinion that Carrsbrook deed restrictions were
valid and that theyk_"precede and have precedence over the County
Zoning Ordinance." He stated that Carrsbrook can "get an
injuctioa and stop construction, should it ever start." He
advised that it would "well behoove the applicant to work with
the residents of Carrsbrook and the ARB before they submit a
plan" to get these matters resolved. He expressed concerns about
0
7-5-94 9
the stream and stated the residents would like to see a site plan
that will minimize the adverse impact on the designated -wetlands.
He asked that there be erosion control measures during
construction which will protect the downstream ponds and also
that there be measures taken after completion of the development
to insure that the polluted runoff from the impervious surface
does not adversely effect the ponds. He asked that a
safety/security fence be required between the embankments and the
residential areas. He also expressed concern about noise and
light pollution. He recommended disapproval of a preliminary
plan which does not address the concerns of the residential
neighborhoods.
Regarding the issue of possible Carrsbrook deed restrictions, Mr.
Davis commented: "The County does not enforce private
restrictions in its subdivision or zoning ordinance review
process, whereas we do enforce the County Zoning Ordinance
requirements. If the Carrsbrook Homeowners' Association can
assert that this development is in non-compliance with their
covenants, they have a right to go to court, in a civil action
that they would have to bring, to prove that point. If the court
upholds that, then an injunction could be entered to protect
their private covenants." Mr. Blue asked if the Commission
should take this issue into consideration in its review of this
request, i.e. "in other words we have no legal basis to say we
are not going to approve this because of that entrance even
though we know that it may be contested, privately." Mr. Davis
confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Blue commented: "Mr. Rice has raised some interesting
points..., but I have made the assumption that our staff is aware
of our ordinances and has advised us, and taking that into
consideration, that we can't ask of the applicant more than our
ordinance allows." He asked if the Commission could require that
the applicant provide some sort of treatment for the polluted
runoff from the parking area. Mr. Keeler stated that the
Ordinance speaks to minimizing downstream pollution. (He quoted
the pertinent section of the ordinance: "in addition to the
provisions of Section 4.14 and other applicable law, provision
shall be made for the minimization of pollution of downstream
water courses and groundwater where such measures are deemed
warranted by the Commission, due to the peculiar character of a
particular use. In determining what measures, if any, are
warranted, the Commission shall consider the recommendations of
the County Engiheer, and, where applicable, the Watershed
Management Official, in the light of the character of the
proposed use, incl U ng, but not limited to, storage of petroleum
products, pesticides, poisons, synthetic organic compounds and
other substances, which, if improperly stored, or inadvertantly
discharged, may reasonably be anticipated to pollute surface and
groundwaters.") Mr. Blue assumed it was staff's determination,
at least preliminarily, that there is no concern about chemical
11
7-5-94 10
runoff from this site. Mr. Keeler called attention to the phrase
"peculiar character of the use" in the section he had just read.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff feels this use is not peculiar.
Mr. Davis added that the general water quality issues are only
addressed by erosion control and those measures which require
detention and to some extent provide some protection to water
quality as well. Mr. Blue wanted it to be clearly understood
that this matter had been considered by staff and "we've done
what we can do."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Commission could address the issue of
safety/security fencing. Ms. Hipski replied that fencing could
be required under two sections of the ordinance, one in the
landscaping provisions, and the other which allows the Zoning
Administrator to require some type of safety fencing. Mr. Keeler
added that he felt "trespass -type" fencing could be required
where there is a non-residential use adjacent to a residential
use. Ms. Imhoff noted that the type of fencing is another
question which would have to be addressed by the ARB. She
pointed out that this is one reason it would be desirable to
eliminate 10 foot high retaining walls.
Mr. Rice once again addressed the Commission and expressed
concern about sewage capacity. He was of the understanding that
the capacity is "maxed out" in that area and there are existing
problems with the present sewage disposal system. He asked that
assurance be given of adequate sewage capacity prior to the
granting of any approvals. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that this
is covered in condition 1(m)--Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
approval of final water and sewer plans and calculations.
Mr. Don Walker, a resident of Woodbrook, addressed the
Commission. He expressed opposition to any grading plan which
would raise the height of the buildings closest to his property.
He felt the vegetative screening and separation in grade was
helpful in buffering the impact of the )development. Being
familiar with the history of this property, he felt the present
plan was "a step in the right direction." He stated that the
location of the dumpster and loading dock would be 100 feet from
his dining room.
Mr. Dick Arthur, a Carrsbrook resident, strenuously objected to 3
entrances onto Rt. 29. He felt this was an appalling suggestion.
There being no"further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Answering Mr. Nitchmann's question about turn lanes at the
entrances, Ms. Hipski explained that there will be a "continuous
turn lane" (similar to that which exists further south on Rt. 29
which serves the Post Office, and Seminole Square Shopping
Centex). Mr. Nitchmann again expressed the feeling that there
/0
7-5-94 1�
should be more than one entrance, for safety reasons. Ms. Hipski
confirmed that 3 parcels could be developed separately, by -right,
each with an entrance onto Rt. 29. She also noted that there
could conceivably be 4 entrances, if the parcel to the north were
to also develop separately. Mr. Keeler pointed out that if
Carrsbrook should pursue the deed restrictions which it feels
exist on the northern parcel, then staff's support for the
northern entrance would "go away." Ms. Imhoff commented: "What
the applicant is getting with this is a combined development
plan, so there is a benefit to him because he gets everything at
once." She felt this results in a "tradeoff" for the entrances
and "it is a give and take as to how this whole development is
going to look."
At Mr. Jenkins' request, Ms. Hipski pointed out the areas of
critical slopes. It was estimated that a total of 15% of the
site was in critical slopes.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why staff had felt it necessary to get into
such detail in the conditions of approval. He could not recall
such detail in any other proposal he had reviewed. After Ms.
Hipski's explanation, Mr. Nitchmann deduced: "So these are just
things that we don't normally see to make sure --because it's
preliminary in nature --that we don't miss any p's or q's." Mr.
Nitchmann felt the planning and engineering staff had been very
diligent in the review of this proposal, and the applicant has
apparently agreed to all the conditions proposed. He concluded
that the applicant, by requesting Commission review at this
stage, is "trying to establish'a set of given design parameters
(entrance location, grading), and then move forward from here to
the ARB and try to work out the details of what is acceptable
from an aesthetic standpoint." Regarding the legal issue raised
by Mr. Rice, he felt that was out of the Commission's control.
He could see no reason to hold up the application at this time.
He confirmed that he would be willing to approve the request with
the condition's of staff, including theigranting of the three
waivers. f
Ms. Huckle asked staff to comment on the question of sewage
capacity. Mr. Keeler was of the impression that this development
"envisions the reconstruction of the pump station and the
relocation of it out of the residential area onto this commercial
property."
Ms. Imhoff commented: "I feel there has been an approach here
which subverts the whole ARB process. You have planning staff
and engineering °"� g g su pppxt, but you are missing the key ingredient
for Entrance Corridor, which is the ARB approval. I would prefer
to see this go back to the ARB with some direction from the
Planning Commission. I guess I could say I would be willing to
see the need for the 2 modifications related to entrance location
and I can understand the inability to preserve that stream in a
7-5-94 12
pristine condition. But I am not willing to do the modification
for critical slopes., I think there was a lot of exageration
about tall buildings towering over the neighborhood. I would
really like to see the applicant and the ARB talk about the
grading so you don't have to have a 12-toot retaining wall, and
talk about the placement of the structures so they can be closer
to 29 and further from the residential properties. I think we
have gotten a lot of issues further along and so by deferring it
to the ARB with these comments, it would give the applicant and
the ARB enough direction, but still flexibility to come up with
another plan."
Ms. Huckle agreed.with Ms. Imhoff.
Mr. Blue pointed out that the ARB is only concerned with the
aesthetic impact on Rt. 29, and it is our Ordinance which
controls what happens between residential and commercial
properties.
Ms. Imhoff asked if the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the ARB meant the ARB would approve the
grading plan. She felt the grading is key to the aesthetic
development of the property and that a condition should be added
addressing this concern if it is not covered in the ARB approval.
Ms. Joseph responded that it was difficult to answer that
question because the ARB has not seen this plan. Ms. Joseph
confirmed, however, that grading plans have been,part of the
ARB's checklist in the past. Ms. Imhoff stated that she might be
more willing to grant the grading modification "if she had some
assurance that the Certificate of Appropriateness had done the
very best it could with developing the site." Ms. Imhoff
concluded: "But right now, because there are so many questions
unaswered, I have to support either deferral or denial."
Mr. Blue felt Ms. Imhoff's concern was unfounded because he felt
the ARB would'be very careful about issuing a Certificate of
Appropriateness. He commented: "In fact, I take the other
position.. I have just never been very sure how you can legislate
aesthetics. What is beautiful to you is not necessarily
beautiful to me. That's why I am concerned about whether the ARB
was holding up this process unreasonably. If they are not, I've
got no problem."
Ms. Huckle had understood Mr. Davis to say, earlier in the
meeting, that'the Commission's support of this plan, prior to ARB
approval, would be weakening the ARB's position. Mr. Davis did
not feel he had c&ented on that issue. He explained: "The
Ordinance only speaks to final site plan approvals as requiring a
Certificate of Appropriatness. So under the Ordinance, you could
approve the preliminary site plan, and then the applicant would
go before the ARB and if substantial changes are required, then
1A
7-5-94
13
the applicant would have to come back to the Commission to amend
his preliminary approval."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Carrsbrook Retail Center
Preliminary Site Plan."be deferred back to the ARB but with the
comments that the Planning Commission would support the
modifications for the entrance locations, and would support
piping of the stream and that the outstanding issue would be
whether or not a modification would be required for grading,
depending on what subsequent negotiations could occur between the
applicant at the ARB." (There was no second to this motion.)
Discussion:
Mr. Blue stated he could support the motion because he felt "that
is probably what is going to happen anyway."
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not the time limit
for this application would allow a deferral.
Mr. Blue asked Ms. Hipski to comment as to her feeling about a
deferral. Ms. Hipski explained that she would like for the
Commission to view the request primarily in terms of it's impact
on the adjacent residential property. She expressed the opinion
that making the future grades match the existing grades of the
adjacent property would result in the development being much more
visible to the residential properties.
Ms. Imhoff disagreed with Ms. Hipski's position as to the
visibility. She pointed out that a fence on top of a 10-foot
retaining wall would also be very visible to adjacent properties.
She felt that the ARB members are "experts in aesthetics." Both
Mr. Nitchmann•and Mr. Blue disagreed with this statement, though
Mr. Blue noted that the ARB does have expert staff.
Mr. Blue concluded, from Ms. Hipski's response to his earlier
question, that staff had not changed it-,'s position regarding
recommendation for approval with those conditions outlined in the
report.
Mr. Keeler explained that the purpose of a preliminary review is
to give the "developer the opportunity to sense the feasibility
of a project." He noted that if the waiver for critical slopes
is not granted, then this plan is not feasible. He felt that
delaying a determination of those issues until the final site
plan was not "iri line with what the Ordinance intends to
accomplish."
Regarding Ms. Imhoff's motion, Mr. Keeler explained that staff
has, for many years, cautioned the Commission and Board against
making "promissory statements" which indicate support, when it is
possible that other evidence, presented later, might mean the
Commission has made a promise which it cannot keep.
7-5-94
14
Both Commissioners Blue and Nitchmann could not see any benefit
in deferral since ARB approval would be required before the
application could proceed.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she did not feel this site plan, as
presented, was approvable and she felt enough issues had been
brought up to justify a deferral.
Noting that her previous motion had died for lack of a second,
Ms. Imhoff, in light of Mr. Keeler's comments, offered the
following amended motion:
AMENDED MOTION: .Ms. Imhoff moved that the Carrsbrook Retail
Center Preliminary Site Plan be deferred to allow time for the
ARB to review the new plan.
Ms. Imhoff's amended motion died for lack of a second.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins stated that he supported the staff report, but he
also understood Ms. Imhoff's reluctance to approve the plan. He
felt this was a very difficult site.
Ms. Huckle agreed it was a difficult site, but she believed it
could be developed. However, she was not convinced the plan
before the Commission was the optimum one for the applicant, the
neighbors or the commercial viability of the project.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved for approval of the Carrsbrook
Retail Cener Preliminary Site Plan subject to the conditions
outlined in the staff report, including the modifications
requested to sections 4.2.3.2, 32.7.2.2 and 4.12.6.1, and with
the direction that staff, in review of the final site plan,
determine the need for safety/security fencing.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion. It
Discussion:
Mr. Blue commented.: "I€ we pass this motion, I think we are
proceeding in the right direction and it does not mean that all
the property owners' concerns will not -be addressed, and the main
concern, about the grading, will be decided by the ARB. I am a
little concerned about whether or not the ARB does have the staff
that is necessary to determine these grading plans, as opposed to
what the applicant�bas. I think the Engineering Department is
more appropriate for that. So, I will support the motion,
obviously."
Ms. Imhoff expressed the hope that the ARB "does have say over
grading plans" because she felt "we have given up quite a lot in
/�4
7--5-94
15
terms of granting this modification." She concluded:
"Unfortunately, I do believe this has, to some degree, subverted
the ARB process and I hope this is not repeated in the future."
Mr. Jenkins also expressed concern about the change in the usual
process. He concluded: "I don't feel that my vote is putting
pressure on the ARB here. I feel like this whole process is
doing that. ... I don't know how this process got out of shape
here, but my vote for it would not be one to put pressure on the
ARB because I think they are working conscientiously to try to do
a good job and this is a tough job."
Ms. Huckle commented: "If it got out out shape, it was the
decision of the applicant not to work with the ARB."
The motion for approval failed (3:3) with Commissioners Blue,
Nitchmann, and Jenkins voting for the motion, and Commissioners
Huckle, Imhoff and Vaughan voting against.
Mr. Davis explained that though the motion to approve the plan
failed, the plan had not been denied, so it was still before the
Commission.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that if the plan is denied, the Commission
must cite the reasons for denial, based on it's infirmities
relative to the provisions of the site plan ordinance."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Commission would view the proposal any
differently if a condition was added requiring Commission review
of the final site plan.
Ms. Huckle felt that type of approach has proven to be an
"exercise in futility" in the past. (Mr. Nitchmann expressed a
lack of understanding of Ms. Huckle's comment.)
MOTION: Ms.'Imhoff moved that the Carrsbrook Retail Center
Preliminary Site Plan "be deferred baclo to the ARB within the
time allowed us by the Ordinance, so that they can, with the
benefit of the minutes of this meeting, and the applicant having
heard from the Commission and the public, revisit the issue,
particularly that of ths-grading and the building locations."
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Staff could not say when the proposal would be re -scheduled
before the Commission as the date would be determined by the ARB
and the applicant`--.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Ordinance allows 60 days from the
date of the application unless the review process has been
suspended by, the Director of Planning and Community Development.
Ms. Hipski reported that the review had been suspended at one
/S
7-5-94
16
time. Mr. Keeler stated staff would have to get back to the
Commission with a date.
Mr. Davis explained: "The State Code provides a procedure for
the applicant to require you to make a decision, but it would
require them (the applicant) to give you notice and you could
then take appropriate action before the deadline expired."
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Jenkins reported that the Crozet Citizen's Committee had
completed it's report and a finished document is anticipated in
early fall.
-----------------------------------------
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35
p.m.
/6