Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500032 Other 2016-01-20Crozet Community Advisory Committee — Minutes — Draft Wednesday, January 20, 2016 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The Meadows, Crozet, Virginia CCAC members present: Dave Stoner (Acting Chair), Mary Gallo (Acting Vice Chair), Phil Best, John Savage, George Barlow, Kim Connolly, Beth Bassett, Leslie Burns, Jon McKeon, Lisa Marshall, Susan Munson, Ann Mallek (Board of Supervisors), Jennie More (Planning Commission) CCAC members absent: Brenda Plantz, Alice Lucan, Kim Guenther Public attendees: Tim Tolson, Tom Loach, Paul Grady, Kyle Redinger, Mike Marshall, Bevin Boisvert, Jim Duncan, Mike Kunkel, Cheryl Salerno, Sandra Meters, Lauran Kramer, Jo Higgins, Jason Crutchfield, Erica Hoskins, Sandra Whiting Mears, Marilyn Whiting, Lillian Huffman, Denise Field, Bill Fritz (Albemarle County), Elaine Echols (Albemarle County), Michael Jones, William Jones, Michael Salerno, Frank Stoner, Tim O'Loughlin, Kirsi Ide Chair Dave Stoner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Agenda Review (Dave Stoner — CCAC chair): Dave Stoner summarized the agenda, which includes a public meeting concerning the proposed changes to the ReStore-n-Station, a response from Kyle Redinger concerning comments on the Adelaide project, an update from Frank Stoner on the Barnes Lumber property, and the status of the Downtown Crozet Initiative. 2. Approval of Minutes from the December 16, 2015 meeting: Subject to any corrections communicated to the secretary within the one week from today, John Savage moved to approve the December 16, 2015 minutes, seconded by Kim Connolly, and the December 16, 2015 minutes were approved by vote of the CCAC. 3. Project Updates/Information: • Public Meeting - ReStore-n-Station Phase II (County Project Representative, Bill Fritz Planner): Jo Higgins, a consultant to store operator Jeff Sprouse, met with the CCAC to talk about ReStore-n-Station (RNS) Phase II. Ms. Higgins said that the current application is for expanding development on the 4.06 acre site. The additions will have the same patterning as the existing building, as shown on the elevations she presented. The changes will include an automobile repair shop in the rear of the building, tenant spaces along the west side, and a doughnut shop with a drive-through (the drive-through being a separate special use permit application). The fuel canopy will remain the same. The property is in the Rural Areas, zoned Highway Commercial. The property is served by a well and is limited to 400 gallons per acre per day. Based on this ratio, permitted water usage was established in the permit application several years ago at 1,625 gallons per day. The landowner owns and operates other convenience stores, and asserts that without a dishwasher, ice maker and related appliances, there is little additional water use in the new construction. As required by the County, water use is metered on site (read by the store operator with records kept at the store) and has been shown to use approximately 250 gallons per day. Mike Craun did the water start-up study for sewage 1 treatment and started the metering study. The meter is unalterable and tamper -proof, and is the same kind as the Albemarle County Service Authority uses. No more than one gallon per minute can be withdrawn from the well. The auto repair shop will have bays. As it stands now, all toilets in the building are low flow and all sinks are water conservation models. A question was asked about what will be adjacent to the tire shop. Ms. Higgins said that nothing on the Freetown Road side of RNS will change. The land dips down on the west side and so they will build that side up. There is a stormwater management system under the parking area on the south side, but the open stormwater detention pond will be removed when all earth - disturbing activity is complete. The stormwater system will be an array of pipes and covered with gravel. The stormwater basin will be done when the parking lot is completed and striped. The parking area is surrounded by a six foot tall privacy fence. A question was asked about planting trees to separate Freetown Road in order to block light that reaches the first house on Freetown. There are now some existing trees and some planted trees. Ms. Higgins said that there is a 20' no -touch strip at the back of the property. However, after the leaves fall there is more view of the site. Questions were raised about traffic. Residents noted that it is difficult to get in and out on both the Freetown and Whiting Lane sides, and difficult to cross over to make a left turn to get to Interstate 64. The right turn lane has actually caused through traffic to speed up. Ms. Higgins said that there is an easement to allow Freetown Road to join in and use the same entrance as RNS, but that was refused by Freetown residents at the time the RNS was built. A commenter noted that when turning into Freetown (by left turn), there is concern about being rear-ended because following drivers believe one is turning into RNS further along and not into Freetown. Ms. Higgins noted that it would help to lower the speed limit, but that is not something they can control. The same issue was noted with Whiting Lane on the other side of the RNS property. It was also noted that light is an issue for the Whiting Lane side. Is it possible to have a higher fence? Ms. Higgins said that lights must be located 22 feet from the property line and that they could look into building lighting that is lower and directed to the ground, but there is the issue that the house in question is lower in elevation and could see the adjusted lighting. Would they be willing to build a taller fence on the driveway line? Ms. Higgins said they could talk about that; they had looked at an 8' fence at first, and placing it closer to the curb would help too. They could also install more internal lights and not place them so close to the edges of the property. It was noted that the RNS is restricted by its current permit to 16 hours of operation, but neighbors say they are hearing trucks all night. A resident asked whether RNS is using all-night credit card machines. Ms. Higgins said that this is a zoning issue and that most stations have credit card machines. It was noted that the new zoning application asks for removal of the restriction on hours of operation. Jennie More noted that there was supposed to be a gate to block off the parking lot to keep people from going into the property late at night. Ms. Higgins said that all restrictions in the current SUP are on water usage. She suggested that some traffic may be due to the asphalt sealing company next door, whose trucks go in and out at different hours. They are also adding alternative fuel pumps, which will be near the gasoline, rather than diesel, pumps. Ms. Higgins was asked where the stormwater outfall would be located and she responded that it runs off the property down to a stream. Mr. Crutchfield said that he owns five 2 acres with a spring on it and he is seeing less water from the spring, and the water he sees seems oily, so he is having it checked. Ms. Higgins said that having the stormwater system reduces pollution. Ms. Higgins was asked about moving the lighting further back, and whether the doughnut shop will be a franchise. She responded that they have talked to one franchisor. She said that there will be no new restrooms but did not have the data on existing water use for the business with her now. The automobile repair business will be for oil changes, inspections, etc., but there has not yet been talk with franchises. Ms. Higgins noted that the pollution regulations for these businesses are very strict. She also said that the stormwater system on the site now is sized for the whole project including what is currently being proposed. Commenters suggested that they do more to be a better community partner and asked what steps will be taken with neighbors to deal with the noise and light issues. Ms. Higgins said that they can look into lighting and screening and the questions regarding the 16 hour operating limit. Commenters also noted that overnight customer parking is not permitted and signs are supposed to be posted. Ms. Higgins said that they want to do away with the hours of operation condition because the water restriction is being used to accomplish this limitation. She says that such restrictions are supposed to relate to the use of the land itself, but the object here is to do it through water usage, which is unlike restrictions on other businesses. One commenter noted that there is already a car repair business next door and they have never had an issue with that business (Warren James). A question was also raised about stagnant water on the site and the presence of mosquitoes. It was noted that the stormwater detention pond is there to meet the stormwater rules and that while such a pond is permitted by the regulations, they have designed their system to eliminate the pond. Phil Best expressed concern over the hours of operation issue and said that he recalled the prior approval for a small building, and that was contentious, and the current request seeks to expand it considerably. Jenny More noted that it was not clear whether the current business's use of one quarter of its permitted water draw may be because of a lack of support for the business, not because of conservation measures that they impose. Ms. Higgins said that the business expects its conservation measures to keep it a low water user despite the fact that convenience stores are historically larger water users. Bill Fritz introduced himself as the County planner for the project. Leslie Burns said that her main concern is to support the Crozet Master Plan, which does not favor commercial uses along Route 250. She expressed surprise that despite the efforts to make the project manageable along this road, the applicant now wishes to expand. Ms. Higgins said that the request is based on water usage, but Kim Connolly said that the concerns are really about quality of life. When asked, Ms. Higgins said that there are no additional expansion plans. She said that the idea of the Comprehensive Plan is to configure the community a certain way, and this has been a Highway Commercial area since before the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Crutchfield asked that the applicant send notices of this process by mail rather than by knocking on doors. Mike Marshall said that the original plan was for a Cape Cod sort of building and then they decided to move the upper floor next to it, and the issue was litigated. The court ruled to limit building square footage under the SUP to 3,000 square feet with the second floor limited to 1,000 square feet, and now they seek to exceed that. The current proposal will add about 12,000 square feet, quadrupling what was approved before. 3 Bill Fritz noted that there are two SUP requests, one of which is to amend the earlier SUP. Such amendments are common, and this is a request to change some of the original conditions. The other SUP request is for the drive-through. He has sent to the CCAC the information supplied by the applicant. If you would like to receive information about the SUP permits, send a request to bfritzgalbemarle.org and he will copy you on further action on the applications. This meeting constitutes the required public meeting as part of the SUP process and the next step is for preliminary comments by Friday. The applicant has a period of time to review the comments and respond by making revisions, or go to the Planning Commission with the request as is. The earliest possible date to go to the PC is February 23 and Mr. Fritz was not sure if the applicant would do that. So, at some point the applicant will say they are ready to submit to the PC and the County staff will send notices to abutting property owners (and anyone else who asks to be on the email list). He is now working on data for the preliminary comments, and said that there is no predetermined outcome. The staff report will be ready one week before the PC meeting, and the staff report will be available on the County website. It is best to go to the County website for the documents because many of them are large files and therefore difficult to email. At the PC meeting the applicant and staff present comments, and the public has an opportunity to speak. The project then goes to the Board of Supervisors with the staff's recommendation, and the BOS is free to do what it wants (the PC is advisory). Mr. Fritz said that he would look ask the Zoning Office to look at the hours of operation issue tomorrow. There is a 24-hour zoning complaint line and a message can be left any time. Mr. Fritz reiterated that SUP applications are very common and the applicant is not required to show need. The SUP criteria are set out in the zoning ordinance and these will be addressed in the staff report. • Discussion & Update - Proposed Rezoning for residential development Adelaide (Kyle Redinger): As a follow up to the public meeting held last month, Mr. Redinger attended this meeting to address some of the concerns raised previously about Adelaide. He said that he would read some remarks and then ask Elaine Echols to comment on compliance with the Crozet Master Plan. Mr. Redinger said that he had started work on the project a year ago and had a pre - application meeting with County staff then. Mr. Redinger said that he studied the Master Plan and worked with staff to put the project together to comply with the Master Plan. Mr. Redinger listed the project's benefits to community, including 14 affordable homes for normal wage earners. He noted that 1,500 new people move to the County every year and they need places to live. Many are attracted to the western part of the County by the schools attract. The project also targets 55+ year olds looking to downsize, and so amenities and floorplans appeal to that segment. Mr. Redinger said that they would partner with Habitat for Humanity for the affordable units. The cash proffers will be the maximum amount, and the development will connect to the Crozet trail system. He noted that they would be developing only 15 of the parcel's 20 acres. Developing to full density would be too dense. Adelaide will be close to a center of Crozet, and like downtown experiences significant car traffic. The traffic count on Route 240 is 5,300 cars per day, and the count on Route 250 in front of Harris Teeter is 9,100 cars per day. They have conducted a traffic study to assess the traffic impact by the site. If the project contains 98 units this would result in 780 new daily trips, which is one car in either direction every two minutes, which Mr. Redinger said would not be a significant change. The traffic study said that there would be no queue impact either. Mr. 4 Redinger noted that attached homes generate less traffic than detached homes. Of the recent fatalities on Route 250, he said that the traffic consultant indicated that most of the deaths occurred close to traffic. The new walkways at Adelaide would move pedestrians away from the road. Mr. Redinger said that they plan to have more affordable housing in the project, with a wider appeal. The economics of higher density favor lower prices. He was asked whether the roads would be an extension of roads in Cory Farms, but he said that there are no easements to do that. Ms. Echols commented on what the Master Plan says for this area. She noted that Megan Yaniglos is the reviewing planner, but she is away for a training program. Ms. Echols had worked on the 2004 and 2010 Master Plans. She said that there are two land use designations on the property: one is for Parks and Greens and the other is Neighborhood Density Residential, which is 3-6 units per acre and lower ranges than exist now. Homes would mostly be single family detached, with some townhouses. Commercial uses, places of worship, daycare, and schools are also allowed in certain areas. While the stated use is single family detached, attached units are also possible. The green areas on Mr. Redinger's map are areas of avoidance and there are two components of that: environmental features and open space. There is an opportunity for interpretation of how extensive the area should be, but this would not materially affect the number of units. It was noted that the Master Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages developers to develop at the high end of the range as long as it is still the neighborhood model. In infill sites, the use should be consistent with surrounding uses. Mr. Redinger noted that he does not believe that it is essential to have this property at a lower density and that it can be 3-6 units per acre and still be within the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the transect plan, in which uses go from commercial to low density residential as you move out of the center. Low density areas have different designations from this property. Mr. Redinger noted that the project includes a buffer along Route 250 to preserve the view. The Comprehensive Plan supports well-designed and livable places that fit in context. What does the land use plan say? What's the livability? It was noted that the plan is now at the upper end of density, but also approvable at the lower end of the density range. Mary Gallo asked what density is assumed by the Master Plan overall? What density do we strive for? Ms. Echols said that they would have to look at calculations for other projects in Crozet, but some developments use existing zoning and some ask for maximum density. The applicant has to explain why the high density is needed, such as at Wickham Pond and Liberty Hall. Tom Loach said that the density should decrease as you move out from the center. Tom said that this project is not consistent with the Master Plan, which is a recommendation and not a requirement. It was noted that affordable homes have been included in Wickham Pond and Old Trail, both of which have complied with the affordable housing requirement. A commenter (Salerno) said that a great deal of feedback was given at the last meeting but this plan is the same. Mr. Redinger said that he is waiting to receive County staff comments first. He was also asked whether the traffic study look at the whole corridor because the traffic will increase at the key times of the day. Mr. Redinger is meeting with the Cory Farms Homeowners' Association on the 27th. Key issues are density and congestion. Residents who live near the rear line of the property said that this project will eliminate what they liked about the area. They thought that this land would be developed at R-1 density too. The affordable homes are targeted at $250,000. 5 Mr. Redinger said that he would like to have the entrance moved to provide better sight distance. Commenters said that they like the space of Cory Farm but not to overdo the density in Adelaide. Ms. Echols said that several developments are at lower density. Here, without rezoning, there are 20 acres, and so the developer could do 20 units, plus bonus densities, ending at perhaps 1.5 units per acre. What is the right density? The Comprehensive Plan supports the lower end and the upper end, and so the applicant must make the case for the upper end. Design is the key for quality of life and if well-designed, there should be a benefit. Cash proffers are made with the rezoning, and the developer pays for new infrastructure such as sewer lines and trails. Mr. Redinger said that more people mean more economic benefit, but Jennie More noted that Mr. Redinger had at first asked for lower cash proffers. Susan Munson said that she had talked to neighbors at Brownsville and Shelton Mill Roads on the south side of Route 250 and they had raised concerns about traffic coming up the rise on Route 250 to their road. The speed limit is too high there and this plan would add many cars to the road. Leslie noted that infill development begs for higher density, but this is a hard place to put it and that idea works better in urban, rather than rural, settings. The greater density should be more in the center of town. Kim Connolly said that she likes the concept but it is in the wrong place. As to the process, Ann Mallek said that there has been no resubmission and so there is nothing to act on; this is an informational meeting. The first set of staff comments is being worked on to address the Comprehensive Plan, and then the record of this meeting will go to the Planning Commission. The developer can go to the Planning Commission for a work session, but at some point, there will be a public hearing and notices will go out to adjacent landowners. The Planning Commission will lean heavily on CCAC comments and the Planning Commission representative. When the applicant asks for the recommendation, the project goes to the Board of Supervisors, but this stage is a number of months out. Ann noted that we are early in the process and recommended we wait and let the applicant respond with a new submittal before making any comments. He may do a work session with the Planning Commission, but has not yet decided. Ms. Echols noted that a big issue can go to the Planning Commission at that point (such as the applicant's justification for the density). The Planning Commission wants input for implementing the Master Plan, and will say what the appropriate density should be. Dave Stoner said that we should have time for comment yet. The earliest the project could get to the Planning Commission is late February and much needs to happen between now and then. • Update - Milestone Partners Update for Former Barnes Lumberyard Development (Frank Stoner) and DCI Update (Tim Tolson, Paul Grady): Frank Stoner said that he wanted to let us know where the plan currently is, and the plans for the rezoning. He also wanted to discuss the park space. Mr. Stoner showed the CCAC the October 2015 map, noting that VDOT takes exception at the configuration of the Square and so perhaps they would have to make it private. There are many connections around the perimeter and so there is an issue with the Square as to parking and pattern. The Phase 1 configuration from October would be closest to the Square, contain all commercial uses, and include the plaza, but they have changed the plan some, and he will show what they plan to submit for rezoning. Mr. Stoner showed the CCAC a map of the public streets with the plan, showing the Square and other areas privately maintained. He said that they may or may not build the East-West street to public standards, but it will allow circulation through the Square. The issue is that the south side road bisects a property line and if they cannot work out an arrangement with the other property owners for the right of way, they T will not be able to show the road as public property without that consent. So he has an alternative road layout to make the phase work. Mr. Stoner hopes to have this resolved with the adjoiners in the next 30 to 45 days. As for the park space, Mr. Stoner believes that they will identify a range of square footage for the park and work out the layout later. He hopes to have a square footage range and general location. The rezoning will be to rezone Phase 1 to Downtown Crozet District, and he would like the remaining Heavy Industrial zone modified to allow uses desirable to have in the area under the Master Plan (such as research and development and some DCD uses). They expect to proffer to dedicate the space of the plaza in Phase 1 and proffer construction of public roads. The previous owner had given up several uses in order to keep their existing use. Mr. Stoner showed several possible locations for the park, and wanted to get sense of what would be right for Crozet. Mr. Stoner would like a more usable space than the one at Stonefield, which he felt was too open. He showed the CCAC examples from Bellingham, Washington (very compact and intimate); Huntington, West Virginia (Pullman Square); Taos, New Mexico; and Baxter Town Center in South Carolina. All of these are different sizes. He also showed a photo of Reston Town Square, which is over an acre at 50,000 square feet. We need to find a balance of intimacy and closure, and make it flexible for size and use. Mr. Stoner said that key features of great spaces include a small size, diverse surroundings, a mix of private and public together, in an important location, designed to draw people in. He will continue to work with the County and DCI on this and come back to the CCAC. Paul Grady is working with DCI to examine the overall design and presented his Design #3. This design has roundabouts on the main street, with rain gardens in the center of each. He also changed the connections depicted in the previous version, and suggests more parking than required with four one -level decks over surface lots. If the eastern tunnel is not built, there may be room for another parking deck, and if needed, it would be possible to build one over the library lot. Mr. Grady says that the plaza should have buildings on fewer sides so as not to block the view of the mountains. He also recommended that the plaza not extend all the way to the railroad track, and recommended against placing all the parking against the railroad track. He still suggests closing the road through the Square, which only works if one of the tunnels is built. The text of Mr. Grady's comments are attached. DCI meets first Thursdays at lunch at the Crozet Library conference room and all are invited. Tim Tolson said that the group walked the site at their last meeting and it was helpful. Tim noted that some new buildings likely will block some of these views, at least in part. All the images shown tonight are on DCI website. 4. Items not listed on the Agenda: None. 5. Announcements: • CCAC open seats and officer nomination reminder: John Savage. John said that we need new officers to be nominated and elected as of April 1 and there are several open spots. If a member would like to serve another term, reapplication is necessary but members are limited 7 to three terms. John will head the nominating committee but would like some help to have this ready next month. Offices are Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. • Albemarle County is hosting a Planning Academy on Thursday, January 21st from 5:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. in Room 241 of COB McIntire. This session is designed to help give CAC members knowledge of the County's planning policies and processes, and will focus on land use policy, growth management plans, the Comprehensive Plan, and web -based tools. • There will be Municipal Band concert on June 7. 6. Future Agenda Items: Transportation issues with Phil Best, and a presentation by Bill Henry on the Blue Ridge Heritage project, which will include monuments in the eight counties surrounding Shenandoah National Park to recognize the landowners that were there before the park was established. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. George Barlow Secretary 3 COMMENTS BY PAUL GRADY January 2016 There are really only four major differences between Frank's design and this one. • The two round -abouts. Since Library Ave. -High St. -Main St. is considered a collector road I do not believe that it should ever have stoplights. Frank seems to think that they take up a lot of space. If you use the centers of the round -abouts as rain gardens and they become part of the stormwater management system, then they more than pay for themselves. • Including Main St. in Phase I, even if the eastern part is only gravel. This is a cost concern for Frank, but if he were to build Oak St. and Main St., then he could wait to build Library Ave. to High and High St. to Main until he has lot purchasers that require those streets. I bent High St. even more and included two potential tunnel locations that would end up in the shopping center, but now that the shopping center has been sold, who knows what can happen. • Parking. I believe that Frank should proffer more parking than is required in the Crozet Master Plan. I have included four one level decks over surface lots that take advantage of the change in elevation from west to east. If the eastern tunnel into the shopping center is used, then the deck to it's east would have to be replaced with a deck over the surface lot in the shopping center. If there is still a shortage of parking after these decks are constructed, then a deck over the Library lot could be constructed. • The Plaza. Since Frank informed us that he was not the highest bidder for Mr. Conely's property, it no longer needs to front the plaza allowing Frank to place buildings south of the Plaza. I think that Frank's plan showing just parking north of the Plaza is a bad idea. If you stood at the western end of the Square and looked east, all you would see is parking along the railroad tracks. That would not be pleasant. As Frank showed in his pictures of plaza's elsewhere, in order to create a sense of place, you need buildings on all four sides. There needs to be a building north of the Plaza to help create that sense of place. A short section of Main St. between Oak St. and High St. north of the Plaza could be closed so that movies could be shown on the south wall of the north building. If the north building is tall enough to require an elevator, it could be located on the western end of the building and be used as part of the pedestrian bridge across the tracks thereby cutting the cost by a third. Frank continues to show buildings west of the Plaza. Buildings here would block the view of the mountains and should be eliminated. The fourth side of buildings to enclose the Plaza and give it a sense of place will have to be on property west of Oak St. 10 SP 2015 -32 and 33 Re- Store'n Station Community Meeting January 20, 2016 Crozet Community Advisory Committee The Meadows This is a summary of the meeting held on January 20, 2016 where Jo Higgins, the applicant's representative, discussed the Re- Store'n Station application at the CCAC meeting. She presented elevations showing the proposed projects along with photos of the existing site. She described the application as contained in the submitted application. She explained that meter readings of water use are done by the applicant and that the meter is tamper proof. The flow of water is limited to one gallon a minute by the meter. Water use has been 68% to 88% off permitted water use. CCAC, neighbor and community comments included: - When will existing stormwater basin be closed out? Concern was that it has standing water. - Desire for more screening on the south side of the development including vegetation and a higher fence. - Better control of lights. Site is elevated and the lights shine down onto houses particularly those to the south and west. - Concerns about traffic including: o Ability to turn left onto Route 250 o Safety of turning off of Route 250 into driveway because traffic on Route 250 believes they are turning into the store and not into the driveway. - Hours of operation. Hearing trucks at night and overnight parking. - Spring on adjacent property is flowing less since the site has been developed and is "greasy ". - Is the drive - through a franchise and do they have water use numbers? - What is the car repair facility and is it a franchise? - Reason that site isn't using as much water as permitted is because residents in Crozet don't go there. If they did the water use would be higher. - Maximum water use should be used, not the average. - Development is not consistent with the master plan. - The issue is about quality of life and water was the only thing the community had to use to slow down the project. Applicant's response to comments included: - Will look into new lighting and existing building lighting. - Would look at an 8 foot fence but that would have to go thru approvals with the County. Will need to do a cross - section to determine what impact a taller fence might have. The change in fuel pumps is to make alternative fuels available using the existing canopy and fuel islands. - Stormwater area is temporary detention and will be removed when the property development is complete. Water outfalls into the stream. Drive- through is a franchise but no contract has been signed. Once a contract is signed water use numbers can be obtained. Have not spoken to a franchise for the car repair. It is light repair and includes oil changes. Limitation on hours of operation isn't fair and doesn't limit water use. - Overnight parking limit isn't related to water use. Staff comment included: - A complaint about hours of operation and overnight parking will be given to the Zoning Administrator for investigation.