HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 28 1993 PC Minutes9-28-93
1
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 28, 1993, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman;
Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms.
Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Grimm and
Nitchmann.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
September 14, 1993 were approved as submitted.
SP-93-23 Albemarle County Fair, Inc. (applicant) Rov &
Bonnie Coggin owner - Petition to operate the County Fair
on 70± acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(42)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 61 (part), is located on the
south side of Rte. 760 approximately 0.3 miles west of the
Rte. 29/Rte. 760 intersection in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Village
residential (maximum 1 dwelling unit per acre) in the
Village of North Garden. Deferred from the September 9,
1993 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Based on the Virginia
Department of Transportation's concerns about the
substantial volume of traffic generated by this use and the
lack of adequate access and staff's opinion that "no
alternatives exist which would alleviate the problems
identified by VDOT," staff was recommending denial of the
request.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. He
distributed photographs of the proposed site. His comments
included the following:
--The North Garden residents are opposed to growth area
designation. Approval of this request would remove 70 acres
of potential 1-acre residential lots. The fair is
compatible with the agricultural and forestal industry of
the present zoning (RA).
--The public concerns with this site are the same as
those voiced on the existing site in 1987.
--The permit is for only a 5-day use per year.
--The plan presented was only a "sketch" and not a site
plan proposal.
--Continued use of the present site results in yearly
set-up and take -down costs which could be invested in a
permanent site. Attempts to buy the present site were not
AV�
9-28-93
2
successful. The applicant should not be "forced" to rent a
site.
--"This is the best site that can be found after 10-11
years of searching. The best site is too expensive --the best
site is on a 4-lane divided highway, in the middle of
nowhere, with no neighbors, with a great entrance, with
crossing guards. That's the best site. We can't find it,
and if we could find it, we couldn't afford it."
--He challenged staff to find a better site, at this
price: "You find it; we'll buy it."
--"This is the best site available in Albemarle County.
Until the County decides to support the fair as an offshoot
of government, this is the best site."
--The fair provides a substantial income for churches,
civic groups and charities.
--The Fair Board needs a permanent site; it needs to be
able to save overhead and to erect permanent structures such
as fences and horse rings.
--The applicant has attempted to address safety
concerns through the use of Rt. 760.
--The distance from Rt. 29 into the site is the same
for the proposed site as it is for the existing site.
Presently there is only one lane of traffic entering the
site and one lane leaving the site. With this proposal
there are three lanes entering, one lane exiting.
--The applicant is willing to make the road a width
that is "compatible with getting the traffic in and out."
--The Police Department has stated that the traffic can
be safely controlled.
--"VDOT has stated that approval of this site would
place the burden of making the site work on the Department
of Transportation. ... For what better reason could VDOT
spend their money than to make this fair work and to change
the turn lanes some instead of spending millions and
millions of dollars for bypasses and road widenings that
never happen." He concluded that this is not really a
safety issue with VDOT since the Police Department has
stated it can handle safety issues, rather it is "a money
problem."
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Carter stated that
the present plan was made available to VDOT prior to their
"supplementary comments."
Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant was prepared to make the
road improvements and pay for the additional police power
which would be required. Mr. Carter replied that the Police
Department has stated they can operate with the same number
of officers as they currently have. He added: "I haven't
discussed that aspect --I feel certain that they would. As
far as the paving is concerned ... we have some preliminary
estimates that we feel we could live with." Based on the
anticipation of private donations, he added: ""Based on the
information that we have we feel that we can accomplish the
193
9-28-93 3
paving." Ms. Huckle asked: "And does that include widening
it to 18 feet?" Mr. Carter replied: "I think so."
Mr. Stan Tatum, a land planner and landscape architect,
explained the plans for the road and entranceway. He was
unable to definitively answer Mr. Blue's question regarding
the length of the stacking lanes. He explained that it
would depend on the topography, but estimated it "would
probably go back to the crest of the hill." Mr. Blue was
interested in comparing the current stacking ability (with
the current site) with the anticipated stacking ability of
the proposed site. Mr. Tatum noted that three entrance
lanes are proposed, whereas presently there is only one
lane.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
their opposition to the request: Mr. John Waring, Mr. David
Franzene, Mr. Dave Bass. (Approximately 30 persons showed
their support for Mr. Waring's comments by standing when
asked to do so.) Reasons for opposition included the
following:
--It is the perception of the neighbors that there is
some unknown "driving force" in the continued pursuit of the
acquisition of this property.
--There is believed to be a conflict of interests on
the part of Mr. Jordan in relation to his position as a Fair
Board member and a realtor.
--Access involves a very narrow "farm lane" on which
two cars cannot presently pass safely without both "taking
to the brush."
--Presence of powerlines which will impact both the
access and possibly the electrical equipment of the fair.
--Traffic will have to cross Rt. 29 which offers the
potential for a "major catastrophy."
--Negative effect on adjacent property values.
--It is envisioned that the site will be used for other
events throughout the year (e.g. tractor pulls, horse
racing, etc.).
--All 140 property owners in the area are opposed to
this proposal.
--It is unfair to have this forced upon the
neighborhood by "just a few members of the Fair Board."
--This is not a no -growth proposal (as characterized by
the applicant) given all the growth -related problems which
are present, e.g. traffic, safety, dust, etc., yet it has
none of the benefits of growth.
--Inadequacy of the access, even with improvements.
--If the Fair will work with a "quasi-public/private
group", a fair site can be produced.
Mr. Waring recommended that the Fair Board enter into
negotiations with the County to possibly accommodate the
9-28-93
4
fair at some outlying area such
offered to show the applicant "a
suitable, available sites.
as Walnut Creek. He also
half dozen" other more
In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to whether or not
the.public had had sufficient time to consider the new set
of drawings, Mr. Waring stated he was not impressed with the
concept. He felt the 3 lanes entering the site would not
solve the problem.
Mr. Carter again addressed the Commission. Replies to some
of the public comments were as follows:
--Stacking has not been a problem since the Police
Department began handling the internal parking. [NOTE:
Later in the meeting Mr. Chauncy Hutter stated that there
had been no stacking on Rt. 29 this past year (even with
only one entry lane) as a result of the professional police
control. Mr. Blue pointed out that there would be more
delays with the proposed site because it will be turning
against traffic. Ms. Huckle called attention to a letter
from the Police Department, dated September 24, 1993, which
stated there had been several backups on Rt. 29 this year.]
--Only 5 days' usage are envisioned. Any increased
usage would be subject to County approval.
--The offer for public assistance in locating a site
has not worked in the past. (The fair found a site once
before, but the County bought it and used it as Rivanna
Park.)
Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant was now proposing to
limit the access to just 760 (excluding 710). He noted that
the conditions of approval included Rt. 710, which would not
apply to this most recent approach. Mr. Carter replied:
"Our position is that we prefer the sketch that we have
shown just using 760." The applicant felt this approach
would best address VDOT and staff concerns.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, the applicant stated
that the Fair does not compensate the County Police
Department for police officer services.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue felt the primary issue was one of safety, since
most other issues could be overcome. He pointed out that
VDOT, the experts, have determined that this is an unsafe
situation, and the County Police Department has confirmed
there have been backups on Rt. 29. He felt making a left
turn off Rt. 29 was "not a safe thing to do."
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that SP-93-23 for the Albemarle
County Fair be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
14
9-28-93
5
Discussion:
Ms. Andersen expressed support for Mr. Blue's position. She
called attention to Mr. Messinger's letter, particularly the
last paragraph.
After having determined that the State has a perscriptive
easement on Rt. 760, Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Bowling: "Would
it stand up under a Court challenge for the County to
approve a lesser development than is normally required and
perscribed by the standards of VDOT for such a road?" Mr.
Bowling responded: "I think it depends upon the situation;
but I assume if you decided to do that you'd make a
conclusion that you could safely do it for whatever event
was proposed. The County, of course, has the benefit of the
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity --an ancient doctrine nowadays
principally designed to encourage government officials, etc.
to do what they are supposed to do without fear of impending
litigation. And you also have insurance policies, so your
liability is pretty narrowly restricted." Mr. Johnson:
"Here is a possession by another party... for which the
County has no authority or responsbility, but yet we can go
ahead and authorize some changes to that that don't meet the
owner's requirements.?" Mr. Bowling: "You do that on many
other occasions, too. You can also, if you determine that
there is a safety situation specifically generated by the
development that's in front of you --that development
alone --then you can require improvements as part of the
approval of that development."
Mr. Johnson questioned whether the proposal was compatible
with the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the area
is presently designated as a growth area in the Comp Plan.
He read a sections of the Comp Plan describing the purpose
of growth areas and villages. He questioned whether this
proposal satisfied the criteria set forth in the Plan and
felt this commercial operation was incompatible with the
growth area and village definitions. Because of this
incompatibility, and because of the safety issue, he
concluded he would support the motion for denial.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed the September 15 Board of
Supervisors meeting. There was a brief discussion about
allowing agricultural/forestal districts in growth areas.
Mr. Jenkins asked that staff provide the Commission with the
criteria which must be met in order to establish a
ag/forestal district in the growth areas.
9-28-93 6
ZMA-93-08 Feldmann'_s. Inc. (applicant). Mark & Lvnnley
Thornton (ownerl - The applicant petitions the Board of
Supervisors to rezone approximately 1.9 acres from R-6
Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described
as Tax Map 45, Parcel 95 is located on the east side of Rt.
659 (SPCA Road) approximately 500 feet north of Rio Road in
the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is
located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 1)
and is on the boundary of areas recommended for medium
density residential (4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre) and
high density residential 910.01 - 34 dwelling units per
acres). Deferred from the September 21, 1993 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Because the applicant was not represented at the meeting, it
was agreed the item would be deferred.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that
ZMA-93-08 be deferred to October 5. The motion passed (3:2)
with Commissioners Blue and Johnson casting the dissenting
vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Blue suggested it would be helpful if petitions
presented by the public could include printed names and
addresses along with the written signature.
Mr. Blue asked that future handouts be 3-hole punched so
they can be inserted in the notebooks.
Clarification of Mr. Johnson's comments in September 14
minutes - Referring to the Meadow Creek Parkway discussion,
he stated he had intended to express support for 11W-2 less
W-1."
CIP for Albemarle County Service Authority - Mr. Johnson
asked if Mr. Brent could be invited to appear before the
Commission to answer some questions about the budget.
Possible Amendment to ARB's Guidelines - Mr. Johnson asked
that the Commission consider requesting that staff prepare
an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would give the
Architectural Review Board the additional authority to
review renovation and modification projects. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that in order for staff to pursue Mr. Johnson's
suggestion, the Commission would need to pass a Resolution
of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, which would then be
presented to the Board for further definition. Mr. Blue
expressed opposition to such an amendment since it was his
feeling the "ARB has too much power now." Mr. Cilimberg
interpreted it was Mr. Johnson's intent to "apply
Certificate of Appropriateness requirements to cases that
lg `7
9-28-93 7
involve building permits not subject to site plans." Mr.
Blue felt the ARB should be approached first to determine
their feeling about additional responsibilities. Mr.
Johnson asked staff to "come up with a definition for
reconstructed, altered and restored structures," and also to
develop amendment language which could be brought to the
Commission at the same time it is sent to the ARB. Mr.
Cilimberg again explained that before staff can begin work
on amending the Ordinance, a Resolution of Intent must first
be passed. It was ultimately decided that any action on Mr.
Johnson's suggestion would be postponed until it could be
presented before a full Commission. Mr. Blue expressed an
interest in knowing of the instances were Mr. Johnson feels
problems have occurred. Mr. Johnson expressed no specific
concerns, but only the general concern that extensive
modifications can presently be made without the review of
the ARB. Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that "the more we
impose government control, the more we encroach on private
property rights, and there has to be a balance." He stated
before he would vote to increase the ARB's authority, he
would have to be convinced a problem exists.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:45 p.m.
DB