HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 21 1993 PC Minutes12-21-93 1
DECEMBER 21, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, December 21, 1993, in Room 7 of the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were:
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the December 15,
1993 Board of Supervisors meeting.
------------------------------------------
SP-93-31 Richard & Carol Greene and Rinqwood Company - Petition
to issue a special use permit for a private airstrip [10.2.2(19)]
on 134 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax
Map 40, Parcel 39 is located on the west side of Rt. 680
intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site
is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area I).
Mr. Fritz distributed materials which were received by staff
after the preparation of the staff report.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Referring to the materials distributed by Mr. Fritz, Mr. Johnson
made the following comment: "I do not feel that I can give this
appropriate attention or evaluation, that which it deserves. If
some people wrote these and they intended it be read, I did not
have an opportunity to read them. My decision will be based on
the staff report and the evidence and testimony that appears
tonight. If there are any (persons) here who wrote these
letters, and they want to present them verbally, then I will be
able to consider them. But I cannot assure them that I have time
to give them appropriate consideration based on this short
notice.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how far the site was from the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport ("as the crow flies"). The
applicant reported that it was 10.5 miles. In response to Mr.
Nitchmann's concerns, Mr. Fritz reported that this proposal had
been reviewed by both State and Federal regulatory agencies and
"no conflicts, physical or commercial, in terms of increased air
12-21-93 2
traffic have been identified...." Regarding future similar
requests, Mr. Fritz explained: "The only comment was that each
request must be reviewed on its own merit." He added that at
some future time a "saturation point" may be reached, but that
point has not yet been reached, nor has a saturation point been
identified. (Such a point would be determined at the State
level.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne, his attorney.
(The applicant, Mr. Richard Greene, was also present and answered
questions from time to time.) Mr. Payne's comments included the
following:
--The airstrip will be for the private use of the applicant
and his wife, by a "very light, fixed -wing, single -engine
airplane" only.
--Noise generated by the airplane is similar to an
automobile.
--Airstrips are permitted only in the RA district.
--The application was designed to address all the issues of
Section 5.1.1 of the Ordinance, which is significant because the
County's criteria are substantially more rigorous than the FAA's.
--The FAA's review took substantially less time than usual
because of the high quality of the application. The application
required no additions or corrections.
--"T-hangars" are almost impossible to obtain.
--The majority of the letters received are in support of the
application.
--The conditions of approval are acceptable to the
applicant.
--The applicant "gets" only what is described in the
application.
--The State approving agency routinely follows the FAA, thus
the applicant anticipates that the State approval will be
forthcoming.
Mr. Johnson questioned where in the application use was limited
to a "Cessna 172."
Ms. Andersen questioned where the decibel charts were referenced.
Mr. Greene was of the impression the charts were referenced
through the FAA Circular Advisory in the application. (Mr.
Keeler noted they were also referenced on page 9 which also cites
a Cessna 172.)
Ms. Huckle asked what type of communication takes place between
airstrips which are located very close together. Mr. Greene
explained that the runways are not "pointed at each other" and
the FAA had reviewed the positions of the runways and "found no
problem with them." (Mr. Payne pointed out that neither this
airstrip nor the one that is in close proximity will be available
for use during periods of low visibility. He pointed out that
the conditions of approval exclude nighttime operation.)
12-21-93
3
There was a brief discussion about the possible existence of a
cemetery near the proposed runway. Mr. Greene explained that it
was his understanding at the time he purchased the property that
the cemetery (dating back to slave times) had been plowed under
by the former owner. No evidence of a cemetery had been found by
his surveyor. It was noted that no grading is proposed in the
area where the alleged cemetery may have been located.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following members of the public expressed opposition to the
proposed airstrip: Mr. Richard Cogan and Mr. Rick Weiss
(property owner most directly effected - home 500 feet from
proposed airstrip). Reasons for opposition were as follows:
--The airstrip will change the character of the district.
--By-right uses of adjacent properties will be adversely
effected and property will be devalued.
--Wildlife and farm animals will be effected.
--"Interference in our air space." (Cogan)
--Noise concerns.
---FAA approvals are not always reliable.
--Crosswinds in the area make flying a light aircraft
dangerous.
--Public hangar space is available at the Charlottesville -
Albemarle airport.
--The airstrip is surrounded by homes which will be placed
in danger because of this airstrip. (A loss of power could
result in the aircraft crashing into Mr. Weiss' home.)
--The request is purely for the convenience of the
applicant.
Mr. Cogan suggested that if approval is granted, a condition
should be added restricting the number of takeoffs or
landings/week to 5 (as indicated in the application).
Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
asked that the views of neighboring property owners be given
consideration. She also asked that consideration be given to the
safety factor involved in the increasing number of airplanes in
the area.
Mr. Lynn Hartmann spoke in favor of the request. He questioned
how "one small plane on private property" could possibly hurt
anyone.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Andersen asked staff to described what procedure should be
followed to get the State to identify the aircraft "saturation
point" for the area. Mr. Fritz stated it was his understanding
that no such figure is available at the moment. Mr. Cilimberg
7.;?
12-21-93
4
added that, if the Commission and Board desire, staff will write
to the local authorities and the Virginia Department of Aviation
and ask if "such a thing can be reviewed."
The Commission supported Ms. Andersen's suggestion. However, Mr.
Blue questioned whether it was relevant to this particular
request since the FAA, the experts in this case, have already
determined there to be no safety concerns. Mr. Blue stated he
did not feel qualified to judge air safety issues and thus must
rely on the FAA.
Mr. Blue expressed a lack of understanding about some members of
the public's perception that the airstrip would change the
character of the area. He stated: "If they just don't want it
because they just don't want it there, I'm not sure that that is
changing character --it may be a perceived change to them --but it
may not be." He agreed that Mr. Weiss, because of his location
near the runway, had a legitimate concern.
Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Blue that the Commission was not in a
position to evaluate safety "one way or another." He asked,
however, that two additional conditions be added --one limiting
the number of takeoffs and landings and another restricting the
type of aircraft to a Cessna 172. He noted that the application
presently refers only to an aircraft "presently owned."
Mr. Grimm pointed out that it would be difficult for the Zoning
Administrator to enforce the number of takeoffs and landings.
Mr. Johnson agreed, but pointed out that it would give
neighboring property owners an "opportunity to count" and the
Zoning Administrator could then respond to a complaint.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff had any idea of the number of
favorable letters which have been received in comparison to the
number of unfavorable letters.
Mr. Fritz responded that adjacent property owners directly to the
west and east (Weiss and Curtain) have written letters of
opposition. Mr. Fritz scanned the letters quickly and reported
later: "Several stated that they were not adjacent; two stated
that they were adjacent and both of them were for the
application...." Later in the meeting, Mr. Payne presented a
map showing those properties surrounding the property which have
expressed support, either written or verbal, for the application.
Referring to the belief that the character of the area will be
changed, Mr. Nitchmann stated he felt the character of the area
"is that which is in the minds of those people that live in that
area and not so much those that may live 50 miles away." He felt
his perspective on the character of the area would be different
than that of Mr. Weiss.
12-21-93 5
Both Mr. Nitchmann and Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the
crosswinds in the area.
Mr. Grimm asked if condition No. 1--Special use permit is issued
to the applicant only ---would allow only the applicant to land and
takeoff at the airstrip. Mr. Fritz responded negatively. He
explained that the wording for the condition had been arrived at
because "the application states an intent, a characteristic of
usage and by limiting it to a particular applicant where there
was no substantial investment in the physical improvement on the
property, you could take what the applicant was saying and have
some comfort in the anticipated usage that would occur." He
added later that the condition would not prohibit someone other
than the applicant from landing at the airstrip.
Mr. Blue noted that if pilots were using the airstrip who might
not be familiar with the area then Mr. Weiss might have a
legitimate concern. However, the applicant is an experienced
pilot who is familiar with the wind conditions in the area, and
he will not be likely to endanger his life by flying in unsafe
conditions.
In response to Mr. Grimm's questions about his intent, Mr. Greene
explained that the application restricts usage to a fixed -wing,
single -engine, light aircraft and though he presently owns a
Cessna 172, there may be a time in the future when he will want
to own a different light aircraft. He confirmed that it was
possible that a guest might at some time land at the airstrip.
In response to Ms. Andersen's request, Mr. Greene explained his
refueling procedure. He stated there was never any intention to
refuel at the farm. He stated it would make no sense to leave
his farm and then stop at the Charlottesville -Albemarle airport
to refuel.
Mr. Grimm noted that this is a rural area and the owner of the
property could change the usage to an agricultural use (such as a
chicken farm) which neighbors might feel would change the
character of the district. He felt "changing the character of
the district" was difficult to define. He did not think flying a
small aircraft on and off of this property would change the
character of the district. He stressed that the FAA had detected
no safety hazards. He concluded that he supported staff's
analysis of the request.
Mr. Jenkins noted that he was a member of this neighborhood. He
felt that though Mr. Weiss's concerns were understandable, "it is
the applicant's land and a permitted use under the Ordinance and,
though we can't legislate it here in this deliberation, it
behooves Mr. Greene to be neighborly. . It puts me in a
difficult position but I think I would have to vote for it."
12-21-93 6
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that
all adjacent property owners were notified.
Mr. Jenkins stated he had contacted the Whitehall Ruritans Club
and offered them the opportunity to express their concerns
directly to him. He had received no comments.
Mr. Nitchmann commented: "I wasn't pushing the fact that we were
going to change the character of the land because, as you know, I
am a proponent of well -planned economic growth which means that
we are going to have to change some of the character of the land
someplace along the line, but I just wanted to make sure that we
gave this thorough discussion and based on Mr. Jenkins' comments
and based on the fact that the other landowners have not written
or verbally shown any concern about this, I guess I would vote
for it based upon what I've heard."
Ms. .Andersen expressed the hope that the Commission and staff
would pursue an identification of the "saturation point" through
the proper channels.
Mr. Nitchmann recalled that he had expressed this same concern
with a recent similar application for a helipad. He felt there
had to be some saturation point because "we just can't have 50 of
them surrounding the airport. However, for the time being, he
felt the Commission must rely on the FAA determination that there
is no safety issue involved. He supported Ms. Andersen's
comments.
Ms. Huckle stated her main concern was the fact that another
airstrip exists just 2 miles away "without any control either."
She expressed a concern about lack of radio communication with
the Charlottesville tower. She also felt the character of the
district would be changed.
Mr. Johnson commented: "This is a special use permit and while I
totally support individual rights, I try to evaluate them as to
how they may effect neighbors. Having viewed the site, Mr. Weiss
has my complete sympathy. If I was sitting in his residence, I
would strenuously object, perhaps stronger than he, and right
across on the other side of the runway is Mr. Curtain, who is not
there yet but also objected. So without any restrictions as to
utilization and because of the direct influence to Mr. Weiss, as
I visualize it, I cannot support this request."
Mr. Blue was of the understanding that it was the consensus of
the Commission to make changes to the conditions of approval
which would address Mr. Johnson's concerns.
Mr. Nitchmann envisioned three additional conditions: One
limiting the size of the aircraft to that which the applicant
currently owns; second, limiting usage of the airstrip to flights
12-21-93
7
piloted by Mr. and Mrs. Greene only; and third, a limitation on
the number of takeoffs and landings.
Mr. St. John felt such conditions were enforceable. He explained
the applicant did not have to agree to the conditions, but if he
did not, he would not be able to go forward with the use.
Staff offered the following changes to the suggested conditions
of approval:
--Add at the end of No. 1: ...and landings and takeoffs
shall be limited to airplanes operated by the applicant. (Mr.
Fritz confirmed that "applicant" included both Mr. and Mrs.
Greene.)
--Add No. 10: Aircraft usage is limited to a Cessna 172 or
similar single -engine, fixed -wing aircraft not to exceed 2,500
lbs. gross weight. (NOTE: A maximum weight was added because
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance defines light
aircraft as that up to "25,000 lbs." Mr. Greene noted that the
FAA's definition is 12,500 lbs.)
--Add No. 11: No more than 5 takeoffs or landings per week.
Mr. Weiss again attempted to address the Commission but was
informed that the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Johnson agreed those conditions should be added, but stated
he still would not support the request because of his perception
of the effect on Mr. Weiss.
Mr. Blue agreed that the effect on Mr. Weiss was substantial. He
added, however: "Changing the character of the district is one
thing, if it changes the character of the district and if we can
prove that or can agree to that, then perhaps we shouldn't do it.
But the objection of one property owner, valid as it may be, in
my opinion, if it is not a safety issue, is probably not
sufficient to override the private property rights of the
applicant."
Mr. Payne attempted to offer additional information but was
informed that the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-93-31
for Richard & Carol Greene and Ringwood Company be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Special use permit is issued to the applicant only and
landings and takeoffs shall be limited to airplanes operated by
the applicant.
2. The airstrip shall be located not less than 500 feet
horizontally nor 1,000 feet longitudinally to any existing
dwelling on adjacent property.
.;7 74,
12-21-93
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted.
4. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation.
5. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours
only, except in emergencies.
6. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of
an emergency nature, shall be performed in an enclosed building.
7. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be
provided with a reasonably dust free surface.
8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be
permitted on -site in conjunction with the airstrip.
9. Fuel storage shall be limited to 10 gallons.
10. Aircraft usage is limited to a Cessna 172 or similar single -
engine, fixed -wing aircraft not to exceed 2,500 lbs. gross
weight.
11. Not more than 5 takeoffs or landings per week.
Discussion:
Ms. Andersen wondered "why we are holding FAA so holy when we
regularly don't hold VDOT quite so holy."
Mr. Grimm pointed out that "requirements" of VDOT are followed,
though "recommendations" of VDOT allow some leeway.
Mr. Blue was of the impression that "generally, we follow (VDOT)
recommendations."
Ms. Huckle questioned whether FAA was "as reliable as people like
to think."
The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Andersen,
Blue, Grimm and Jenkins voting in favor and Commissioners Huckle,
Johnson and Nitchmann voting against.
------------------------------------------
SP-93-32 Ray A. Graham, III - Petition to issue a special use
permit to allow a 4,000 square foot gift shop, 3,000 square foot
outdoor market, 4,000 square foot antique shop, and a 3,000
square foot animal hospital/commercial kennel served by a total
of 84 parking spaces (a maximum of five dwellings and greenhouses
and an orchard are also proposed). Property, described as Tax
Map 79, parcel 10, (part of) consists of 20 acres and is located
in the northwest corner of the Rt. 250/Rt. 22 intersection and is
a77
12-21-93
0
by
bordered on the north At I-64. The property is zoned RA, Rural
Areas and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This
site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Area II).
Mr. Fritz distributed copies of two letters received after the
preparation of the staff report.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"...staff is concerned about the scale of the proposal in the
Rural Areas and the inconsistency of this request with the Rural
Areas. Although taken individually, the uses seem to have some
precedent for approval based on past review of like proposals,
there is no precedent staff can find for approval of such a
cluster of uses approaching a Village/Neighborhood scale in the
Rural Areas. ...Therefore staff cannot recommend approval of
this request."
Mr. Blue asked why staff felt the scale aspect of the proposal
was significant enough to overpower all the positive aspects of
the proposal.
Mr. Fritz replied: "The concern largely was that this was
approaching a scale which was most appropriately located within a
village or neighborhood service area, based on the historical
context of the review. If the level or scale of the activity
fell to that which historically has been approved, such as if it
were only a request for an antique shop --that's supportative of
tourism --or if it were only a request for an animal hospital,
that would be consistent with past reviews. It is the grouping
of the uses that is causing us the concern." He added that,
individually, both the antique shop and the gift shop are larger
than any that have been approved, though they are "close." Taken
together, they are "significantly larger" than any that have been
approved. He concluded: "Staff is unaware of any time where
there have been multiple special use permit requests (for uses of
this nature) on an individual parcel that have resulted in
something like this." He noted that Michie Tavern is a little
different, the scale is different, and it was done under a
different Ordinance.
Ms. Huckle asked how many parcels exist like this one, i.e.
located where there are roads on three sides. (Mr. Fritz noted
that there are roads on four sides.) Mr. Fritz could not answer
Ms. Huckle's question, but stated that this is not a
characteristic that is shared by many parcels. Ms. Huckle asked
if staff would prefer that the uses were developed on separate
parcels with separate entrances. Mr. Fritz replied: "That's a
concern and that is part of the reason we stated in here that
should you choose to approve this, we are going to modify the way
we view these things in the future. If that's your (the
Commission's) opinion... if this property is so peculiarly
%?
12-21-93 10
situated as to warrent approval of these requests, that's not
commonly shared, and there are some favorable factors that
outweigh the ones that we cited, then clearly you would recommend
approval." Mr. Fritz later returned to Ms. Huckle's question and
stated: "If your question is, on this 20 acres, is it better to
have each one with an individual entrance than to have them all
using a joint entrance, then, clearly, based on all actions we
have done historically, we would say a single entrance. If the
question is to have one here, one another mile up the road, etc.,
I am not sure I have a good answer."
Mr. St. John attempted to clarify the precedent referred to by
Fritz. He stated: "Here you have a piece of land which is, if
not unique, is very unusual --a 20-acre piece of land zoned RA,
surrounded by major rights -of -way. You have also said that it is
really unsuitable for the kind of uses that the intent of the RA
district involves. My question is, why would you alter your
approach in the whole RA district? Even if this is approved, I
can't understand why you would approve a clustering, or a complex
of this size and intensity, say, on a piece of land of 1,000
acres where it is suitable for RA use." Mr. Fritz replied:
"Maybe the statement made by staff is a little oversimplified.
Obviously, we have to review in context the comments that you all
made to any future requests. It is in that light that future
reviews would be altered by what you might say here."
Mr. Nitchmann commented: "Only to the extent that you would find
something that would also be surrounded by four highways, I
wouldn't see where this would set any precedent whatsoever."
Mr. St. John: "A precedent applies to a future case of similar
situation, not across the board in the RA district."
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the staff report says "similar
requests." He added: "You have to understand we go based on
what the Zoning Ordinance indicates, what past actions of the
Board have indicated, in approving what the Comprehensive Plan
says. And if this is pointed out as being unique, which,
obviously in the action you take, and the Board ultimately takes,
they cite their reasons, if they point that out as being unique,
it may have no other similar type of development proposal
anywhere in Albemarle County. In that case, we may not ever have
a review that parallels this one. If we do, we are certainly
going to use the history of an action in reviewing that."
Mr. St. John: "You're not saying that approval of this
application would open the gates to developments of this size,
magnitude and intensity everywhere in the RA district."
Mr. Cilimberg: "That's only determined by future applications
and Board decisions."
-� 7?
12-21-93 11
Mr. St. John felt the issue had been clarified.
Mr. Keeler commented: "Mr. Fritz has not said that this property
is unsuitable for any and all rural uses. When you have a zoning
condition where you can enjoy no use of the land under existing
zoning, that is where, in and of itself, just that issue taken
alone, can work favorably towards a rezoning. That doesn't mean
you have to give them 5 or 6 uses in order for someone to have
reasonable use of the land. The applicant is proposing uses that
are by -right on this land. ... I just don't want you to get the
notion that Bill's comments, in regards to this property, isolate
it as to being an island surrounded by roads. ..."
Mr. Johnson asked staff to identify the Comprehensive Plan
reference to "Rural Area II." Mr. Cilimberg explained that
there is a map in the Comprehensive Plan which indicates the
major rural areas of the County and it is used mainly for
identifying geographic quadrants of the County. Mr. Johnson
stated that neither he nor Mr. Fritz had been able to locate this
reference in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that staff
check the reference and if it cannot be located, the reference
should be removed from the staff report.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about the uses on
surrounding properties, Mr. Fritz explained that the Shadwell
Store and the property directly behind it are zoned Commercial.
The rest of the property is zoned RA; the property across Rt. 250
(the quarry) is zoned RA, but is in a Natural Resource Extraction
Area. Hunter's Hall (an industrial subdivision) is located to
the west of VDOT and VDOT is located on RA land, but is used as
an office and equipment storage area by the Virginia Department
of Transportation. Mr. Cilimberg added that this particular
property was zoned Commercial at one time, but was changed to RA
in 1980. Mr. Nitchmann asked why the Commercial designation had
been removed. Mr. Fritz explained that the property was not
shown as a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan at the time the
County did its comprehensive rezoning.
Mr. Keeler offered further explanation: "The Board's direction
to staff in 1980 as to how to do the zoning, was if the property
was situated outside of the designated growth and was used as it
was zoned or had an approved plan of development that was
consistent with that zoning and the use wasn't permitted in the
rural areas, to recognize it; otherwise, take it off the map."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented first by Mr. Ray Graham, the owner
of the property. He was assisted by Mr. Lynn Beckmire and Mr.
Jeff Dreyfuss. He described the history of the parcel. He felt
the proposal proposed no detriment to any surrounding neighbors
and the uses are stated to be important in the Comprehensive
12-21-93
12
Plan. The applicant gave a slide presentation which showed
various views of the property, surrounding property, and other
sites in the County. Mr. Dreyfuss, architect for the project,
described the plan.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
Mr. Kevin Cox - He expressed support for the proposed uses,
though he felt it was unfortunate the wayside stand was dropped.
However, he expressed "serious reservations" about access to the
site. He stressed that the intersection of Rts. 22 and 250 was
an unusual one and very confusing. He stated: "Personally I
would be much happier if there was a traffic light at 22 and 250
and access to this site was off 22. It is a killer right now and
it is very dangerous as it exists at this moment." In
conclusion, Mr. Cox suggested that in the future staff reports
include the status of properties in regard to Use Value Taxation
"so you can judge the effectiveness of Use Value in preserving
agricultural land." He noted that this site is presently in Use
Value and if the use changes "the county will be blessed with a
surge in revenue from that particular site."
Mr. James Elridge (owner of Parcel 1C) - He expressed
opposition to the request and called attention to a letter he had
written concerning this proposal. (He did not read the letter.)
He expressed concerns about the dangerous intersection. After
recalling several recent requests for special permits along this
same stretch of highway, he expressed concerns about spot zoning
and he stated that "it seems to be too easy to upset carefully
considered zoning by special use permits requiring a simple
majority vote of the Supervisors instead of 5 of the 6
Supervisors."
Ms. Joy Matthews, representing the League of Women Voters -
She expressed opposition to the proposal and support for staff's
analysis of the request. (See Attachment A to these minutes.)
Reasons for opposition included scale inappropriate for the Rural
Area; poor soils and a low percolation rate make the use of a
septic system questionable; possible future changes in use should
any of these uses fail; and the fear that the rural area could
become a "catch-all" for commercial uses.
Mr. Dan Jordan, Director of the Monticello -Jefferson
Memorial Foundation - He was opposed to placing a "shopping
center" on a piece of rural land outside of a growth area. He
felt the development would be an "intrusion into Monticello's
viewshed and a bad precedent." He expressed support for the
staff report.
Mr. Gabrielle Rouse - He expressed support for the proposal.
He noted that this was a piece of land which was cut off from the
main farm by 164. He felt an "agricultural village" was a
reasonable option for the land.
Ms. Penny Homes - She expressed opposition to the proposal.
She described what has taken place in other areas where she has
12-21-93 13
lived in regards to the disappearance of natural areas. She
questioned the need for this development in a rural area. She
felt the character of the rural area should be maintained.
Mr. Sandy Shank - He expressed opposition to the proposal.
He felt the public looks to the Comprehensive Plan for protection
from this type of "de facto zoning."
Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environment
Council - She expressed oppostion to the proposal. The PEC's
primary concern was "the request for multiple special commercial
uses to create a shopping center in a rural area zone (which are)
in addition to the maximum amount of residential development
allowed by right for a parcel of this size in a rural area zone."
The PEC also felt approval would set "a significant precedent for
commercial development in rural area parcels which would be very
difficult for the County to control." (See Attachment B to these
minutes.)
Ms. Pat Napoleon, a lifelong resident of Keswick - She
expressed opposition to the proposal. She described the existing
dangerous traffic pattern at the Rt. 250/Rt. 22 intersection.
She was opposed to "this intrusion into our scenic and historic
neighborhood."
Ms. Janine Wolanski, a professional planner residing
approximately 1 mile from the proposed development - She was
opposed to the proposal primarily because of the precedent which
would be set for future development in rural areas. She felt
this type development should be limited to designated growth
areas.
At this point, there appeared to be no further public comment.
The Chairman offered the applicant the opportunity to make final
comments.
The applicant stated that the plan has been designed so as not to
impede any future widening plans for Rt. 250. The applicant
offered to answer Commission questions.
Mr. Blue asked if the applicant could offer any assurance to the
public that "this is what you intend, that this is for this
particular piece of land and that you are not planning to request
any more intense development" in the future. The applicant
replied: "That is correct. The land has certain constraints, as
pointed out, such as water and sewage capacity. In the review by
staff and the Health Department, it was deemed to be adequate for
these uses with this square footage."
Mr. Grimm asked the applicant to describe the plans for handling
traffic in and out of the site. Mr. Beckmyer responded to this
question. He described the proposed traffic pattern for
accessing the site using a large drawing. He explained that the
traffic engineers propose to extend the existing lane to provide
access for west bound traffic. No oppostion from VDOT was
expressed to this plan; no sight distance problems exist. It was
12-21-93 14
pointed out by a member of the public, Mr. Barry Dofflemyer, that
the lane referred to by Mr. Beckmyer was the existing
acceleration lane for persons coming from Rt. 22 onto Rt. 250.
Mr. Dofflemyer asked how east -bound traffic would be handled
since presently, with no traffic light, those vehicles would have
to turn left across the present west -bound acceleration lane.
Mr. Beckmyer stated that it has been determined that no traffic
light is needed. He explained that it is estimated that 290
vehicles will visit the site in a 24 hour period. Mr. Dofflemyer
questioned the low traffic count for such a large development.
Mr. Beckmyer stated that the majority of uses would not be open
during peak rush hours. Definitive hours have not yet been
established.
Ms. Dotty Risen, a resident of Milton, questioned the safety of
having east -bound traffic turning across west -bound traffic which
is in the process of accelerating.
Mr. Blue asked if any consideration had been given to moving the
entrance further to the west. Mr. Beckmyer replied that the
plans are based on the recommendations of the traffic consultant.
Mr. Fritz explained that various options were discussed with
VDOT. No detailed road plans have been prepared and VDOT
issuance of an entrance permit will be required prior to final
approval. If VDOT requires that the entrance be relocated in
order to obtain an entrance permit, then that will have to be
done. If a relocation is such that it is not "in general accord"
with the information before the Commission at this time, it may
possibly require re -approval of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fred Westervelt, a daily user of these roads, addressed the
Commission and expressed concern about the "vagueness" of the
applicant's traffic plans. He asked that consideration be given
to delaying action until a safe, viable traffic plan has been
developed.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson read a prepared statement which is made a part of
these minutes as Attachment C. His primary concern was with the
proposed traffic pattern and he stated he could not support the
request if those plans were left as described. He suggested
changes to the conditions of approval which allow him to support
the proposal.
Ms. Andersen "took issue" with Mr. Johnson's comparisons to
Michie Tavern. She pointed out that some of those uses have been
"grandfathered" and 3,000 square feet is not 10,000 square feet
as is the case here. She concluded that she supported staff's
analysis of the request as she felt the scale of the proposal was
"out of proportion."
,P3.3
12-21-93
15
Ms. Huckle recalled that a member of the public had pointed out
that only 1% of the site is proposed for development. She felt
the "scale for the size of the piece is quite minimal." She
expressed support for a "farmer's market" type use, but she felt
the traffic issue was a major problem.
Mr. Grimm agreed that traffic matters were his major concern and
the Commission is charged with giving consideration to matters
involving public safety. He noted that traffic in this area will
continue to increase as Glenmore continues to build out. He felt
that the design of the project was very appropriate for the rural
areas.
Mr. St. John noted that all Commissioners who had spoken thus far
had expressed approval of the architectural aspect of the
proposal. He felt it was important that if approval was granted,
in part on the basis of the architectural renderings which have
been presented, the record should be clear that the development
must be in substantial accord with these drawings, unless they
are altered by the ARB. Mr. Fritz confirmed that all the
drawings presented in the public hearing are contained in the
documents presented to the Commission.
15?811
W.,
12-21-93
Mr. Johnson noted that there is an inconsistency in the road
plans.
Mr. Jenkins commented: "I think the site and the intensity of
the site is excellent and something we should consider. But the
amount of citizen interest that is here tonight that is against
the project is of great concern to me. The staff report is
against it; and I just think that while this book that we have
been given --and the staff report shows a lot of work --if the
County is going to let 250 East become developed --and this opens
the gate to more development of a commercial nature --that we need
to think it through in a more detailed fashion as a County rather
than as one citizen presenting the kind of document that is here,
which I think is very nice although it is flawed by this problem
with traffic. So I have to vote against it." He indicated he
supported staff's analysis.
Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Jenkins. He felt further review of the
whole area during Comphrehensive Plan review was needed.
Ms. Huckle suggested possibly deferring action on the request
until after completion of the Comprehensive Plan Review.
Mr. Nitchmann indicated he agreed with statements which had been
made about the need for an outlet for local rural area goods.
However, he stated the by -right uses of the land had to be
considered also. He agreed the proposed design was appropriate
and felt it would be less objectionable in Monticello's viewshed
(provided the use did not change in the future). He wondered if
any restrictions against future changes to the site could be
placed on the permit, though he questioned how that could be
accomplished in the long-term future. Being a daily traveler on
this section of highway he stated that his major concern was
"more work needs to be done on the traffic pattern." He felt a
"definite danger" exists. Though Mr. Nitchmann asked if there
were any proffers which would provide for the future 4-laning of
Rt. 250, it was pointed out that proffers are made through the
rezoning process, not with a special permit. He noted that the
property is already surrounded by commercial uses. He felt "a
lot of questions need to be answered as to where we are going
with 250E," and he concluded he could support Ms. Huckle's
recommendation for a deferral. He felt it was a "grand plan" if
the safety issue could be addressed.
The possibility of deferral was discussed. Staff could not
provide a definitive deferral date because "that is many months
out." The Chairman invited the applicant to comment as to
whether or not a deferral was acceptable. Mr. Graham did not
answer the question directly at this time but rather offered to
work with VDOT and staff towards a solution to the traffic
concerns. A representative of the applicant (who did not
g�
17 12-21-93
identify himself, though it is believed that he was the
applicant's attorney, Mr. Steve Blaine) addressed the Commission
and stated "we are reluctant to request a deferral to become
involved in the overall Comprehensive Plan process. ... On the
issue of traffic, we would like the opportunity to go back and
work with VDOT and that would be our request. If we can't
satisfy the Commission, we'll take our lumps at that time."
Mr. Blue commented: "I agree with the applicant. I think
traffic is the primary issue. If we wait until we do something
on the Comprehensive Plan, I think any recommendation to change
that to a growth area will have not only all these people here,
we will have double that many that will be opposed to it for
probably very good reasons. I think we have to take this plan on
its merits if we can satisy the concerns that we all have about
traffic safety then I think we vote up or down on it. I haven't
said anything personally on it. I'll take this opportunity to do
it. If I am convinced that this is the kind of development that
we are going to set as a precedent for that section of 250, I
don't object to that. If this is just a 'foot in the door' so to
speak and we do growth area and start commercial zoning like we
have out Rt. 29 then I am opposed to that." He did not feel that
deferral on the basis of waiting until after the Comprehensive
Plan review would accomplish anything though he did feel that
deferral for further traffic study was reasonable.
Ms. Andersen agreed that the traffic issue was a very important
one, but she also felt that many of the citizen concerns were
with the fact that the property is zoned RA.
Mr. Blue commented: "I'd like to see the rural areas put up into
Rural Residential and real Rural Areas. It seems that we are
getting this argument in just about everything that comes up.
Most of the County is zoned Rural Area and every time we have
opposition it is always because it is rural residential area."
Staff was unable to define a "reasonable deferral time" to allow
for a traffic study.
Mr. Keeler interpreted the Commission's traffic concerns were
mainly the following three items ("barring a full-blown
Comprehensive Plan Review"): (1) What safety improvements can
be made to the existing intersection configurations out there?
(He felt this has been studied in the past so there may be
existing plans.) (2) What is the intent and possible schedule
for future road improvements to 250, if any exist? (Mr. Cilimberg
did not think this question would be answered within any
timeframe that could be related to a deferral.) (3) What access
improvements are necessary to accommodate this site?
Mr. Keeler noted that there is a recommendation in the
Comprehensive Plan to include "farmer's market" but it had not
kU
12-21-93
been pursued. The Board -appointed Agricultural -Forestal Support
Committee will soon be completing a report to the Board which may
have some recommendation on a farmer's market. He felt that a
definition for "farmer's market" for the Ordinance might be
"tricky."
Referring to the time it takes to get responses from VDOT, Mr.
Jenkins noted that the Board of Supervisors not only is aware of
the Commission's vote on items, they also get minutes and the
applicant will have an opportunity to address some of these
concerns before the Board meeting. He felt the applicant
deserved a decision by the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-93-32 for Ray A. Graham, III,
as presented to the Commission, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion for denial "on the
basis of the traffic pattern as currently defined."
Mr. Jenkins stated his motion for denial was "based on the staff
report." He noted that all the discussion on traffic was a part
of the minutes.
Mr. Johnson then questioned whether he could support the motion
on that basis since the staff's main concern was one of scale.
Mr. Jenkins stated he understood Mr. Johnson's position, but he
did not change his motion.
Mr. St. John pointed out that a motion for denial of a special
permit did not have to be accompanied by a specific reason. He
explained that quite often Commissioners and Supervisors vote the
same way, but for different reasons, and "if you had to have
unanimity on the reasons, you'd be here all night." Mr. St. John
felt that Mr. Jenkins was just stating his reason for making the
motion but that was not a part of the motion. He concluded:
"The motion is to deny the thing, period."
(Mr. St. John explained that only when denying a by --right site
plan or subdivision does the Commission, as a whole, have to tell
the applicant what can be done to make the proposal approvable.)
Mr. St. John also pointed out that a recommendation for denial by
the Commission was not removing the applicant's chance to request
a deferral from the Board.
Mr. Blue asked that the record show that his vote for denial was
c-�97
19
12-21-93
based on traffic concerns and not because of the scale.
Ms. Huckle agreed her only concern was with the traffic plans.
She felt it was a very attractive development and would "be to
the advantage of the County to have it."
At this point the applicant's representative (the same one who
had failed to identify himself earlier) stated that the applicant
was asking for a deferral to allow the applicant to examine
traffic issues. However, the applicant, Mr. Graham, stated: "we
don't want an indefinite deferral. We would like for you to make
a decision based on the concept of this plan with me proffering
that I will resolve the traffic to your satisfaction and the
citizens and the Board of Supervisors."
Mr. St. John interpreted: "You're asking for approval of this
special use permit tonight, subject to your future satisfaction
of the traffic problems. Is that right?"
Mr. Graham: "No; subject to your satisfaction of the traffic
problems."
Mr. St. John: "Then you're not asking for a deferral."
Mr. Graham: "Right."
Mr. St. John: "I don't think you can approve half of a special
use permit."
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed
that the Board will entertain a deferral request from the
applicant even after the Commission has taken action. The Board
may then, when presented with additional information, decide
whether or not to send the matter back to the Commission or to
entertain it without further Commission comment.
Mr. Nitchmann interpreted that it would save everyone time --the
applicant, staff, the County, citizens ---if the Commission takes
action and moves the item on to the Board.
The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously. (Ms.
Huckle noted that her vote was because of the traffic situation.)
-----------------------------------------
12-21-93
MISCELLANEOUS
20
Building Permits in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District - ARB
Review - Because of the lateness of the hour, discussion of this
item was postponed to a future meeting.
-----------------------------------------
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10
p.m.
DB
Jed. a2/ �i�
. wayne ,(;&iimDerg, secretary