Albemarle County Planning Commission

May 1, 2007

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Jon Cannon, Eric Strucko, Duane Zobrist and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Pete Craddock and Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman were absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent. 

 

Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David E. Pennock, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Chief of Zoning and Current Development; John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development; Allan Schuck, County Engineer and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Ms. Joseph called the meeting order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:

 

Ms. Joseph invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.  There being none, the meeting moved on to the next item.

 

Committee Reports:

 

Ms. Joseph invited comments on committee reports.

 

 

 

 

§         Ms. Joseph noted that the other item that the Board is going to look at tomorrow is the report from the Development Review Task Force.  The Task Force is making the following recommendations.

 

o        A two-step process with the rezoning – Step one would be looking at the actual land use and seeing what the feasibility was in terms of how it affects the schools, roads and other infrastructure.

 

o        The second step would get more into the details of the placement of buildings, amenities, etc.

 

o        The other suggestion has to do with modifications and waivers.  There was a strong urge to change the ordinance to allow modifications and waivers by staff approval.  That means that they would be coming up with some performance standards for the modifications and waivers.  It would not be unlike what they were talking about with critical slope waiver requests in the rural areas.  Any change in the ordinance usually comes before the Planning Commission with public hearings. 

 

o        Another suggestion was figuring out where the Board, ARB and Planning Commission fit into the process in terms of rezoning and special use permits. Sometimes they are never quite sure who goes first and what kind of information they need.  Included in that suggestion is that an educational session be held to give us an idea of what State and local legislation says about what the powers, duties and responsibilities are for the various boards. 

 

o        The other suggestion was making more information available to the public.  There is a series of ways that will be done online and in the new Community Development area.  There was a lot of discussion about getting the public more involved.

 

o        Out of all the suggestions she still had concerns about the waivers and modifications.  There is a recommendation that site plans would not be able to be brought up for review by the Planning Commission.  

 

o        The Board will be hearing those recommendations tomorrow at 10.45 a.m.  This information is available on line.

 

There being no further committee reports, the meeting moved on to the next item.

 

Consent Agenda

 

a.       AFD-2007-001, Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District Additions – Planning Commission to refer applications to the Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee.  (Amy Arnold)

 

b.       AFD-2007-002, Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District RenewalPlanning Commission to accept applications. (Amy Arnold)

 

c.       AFD-2007-003, Nortonsville Local Agricultural/Forestal District Renewal - Planning Commission to accept applications. (Amy Arnold)

 

Motion:  Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, for approval of the consent agenda as recommended by staff.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)

 

Ms. Joseph noted that the consent agenda was approved. 

 

Deferred Item:

 

SDP-2007-00031, Korean Community Church – Critical Slope Waiver Request:

Request for waiver of Section 4.2 building site requirements in order to construct a two-story church with 6,090 square feet footprint – portions of parking and drive aisles, as well as associated grading on critical slopes.  The parcel, described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 23G, contains approximately 3.851 acres and is located 350 feet from Ivy Road (Route #250) approximately 0.28 miles from its intersection with Broomley Road (Route #677).  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 1.  (David Pennock)

 

Motion for Critical Slopes Waiver:

Motion:  Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to approve SDP-2007-00031, Korean Community Church – Critical Slopes waiver request.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.   (Mr. Morris and Mr. Craddock were absent.)

 

Motion for Curb and Gutter Waiver:

Motion:  Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve SDP-2007-00031, Korean Community Church – Curb and Gutter waiver request.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.   (Mr. Morris and Mr. Craddock were absent.)

 

Ms. Joseph stated that SDP-2007-00031, Korean Community Church waiver requests for both curb and gutter and critical slopes were approved.

 

Regular Items:

 

SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West – Preliminary:  Private Street Waiver Request:

Request for re-approval of a preliminary plat to allow the creation of 28 new lots.  The property is described as a portion of Tax Map 78 - Parcel 57, which contains 253.7 acres zoned R-1 (Residential), RA (Rural Areas) and PRD (Planned Residential Development) adjacent to the Franklin, Ashcroft, Fontana, and the proposed Lakeridge subdivisions.  This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the PRD portion of the parcel and proposed access is from the east through the Ashcroft subdivision.  The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as being split between Neighborhood Density in Development Areas Neighborhood 3 and Rural Area 2.  (David Pennock)

 

Motion:

Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded to deny SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West – Preliminary Private Street Waiver Request.

 

Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Kamptner if they need to have a list of reasons why they are denying the request.

 

Mr. Kamptner replied that it would be very helpful for the Board because they will have only the minutes and the staff report with the staff report recommending approval.  If they can articulate reasons why the Commission does not think it should be approved it should be stated.

 

Amended Motion:

Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to amend the motion to deny the private street waiver request for SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West – Preliminary based on the reasons outlined by the members of the Commission.

 

·      Staff recommended approval because they thought that they did not have any other choice, but the Commission disagreed because they have a choice.  It is a development that would not be approved today.  They have an obligation in the County to keep these rural places rural.  Even though it has a separate zoning right now they don’t have to make it easy to develop it.  The Commission should do everything they can to keep the pristine parts of the county pristine and push development in the appropriate development areas that would be designated under today’s standards as opposed to standards in 1978 prior to the current by right zoning ordinance. 

 

·      Considering the development occurring in this area the private road standard is not in the best interest and the service of the community.  The public road standard is the best course of action here.

 

·      Staff’s recommendation for a private road approval relates to a difference in the amount of construction disturbance.  Certain grades could be lessened to eliminate a sufficient amount of cut and the earth work differences are exaggerated.  There would be at least some redesign measures that could be taken to minimize the potential environmental difference between the public and the private road.  The difference in impact between the private and public road was less than what was stated in the current plan.

 

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)

 

Ms. Joseph noted that the private street waiver request for SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West – Preliminary was denied.  The applicant has ten (10) days to appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors. 

 

Motion on Open Space Appropriateness:

 

Motion:  Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve the appropriateness of the open space use for SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West – Preliminary as recommended by staff.

 

Amended Motion:  Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to amend the motion for approval of the appropriateness of the open space use for SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West – Preliminary by adding the six (6) reasons listed in the staff report on page 7.

 

(1)          There is no flood plain in the open space or on the property.

(2)          Very large areas of critical slopes are shown in the proposed open space.

(3)          Water lines and drainage easements are proposed through portions of the open space.

(4)          Three small storm water management facilities are proposed in the open space.

(5)          Recreational areas are not required or proposed.

(6)          The open space for this project circles this development on three sides to a depth of at least 500 linear feet.  This provides a reasonable buffer to all other adjacent subdivisions and other portions of Ashcroft.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)

 

Ms. Joseph asked if the Commission wants to take action if the Board upholds their request that require each of the lots to have an erosion and sediment control plan.

 

Motion:  Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to require each of the lots to have an erosion and sediment control plan if the Board upholds their request.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)

 

Ms. Joseph noted that the motion passed to require each of the lots to have an erosion and sediment control plan if the Board upholds the request.

 

Go to Attachment D

Return to exec summary

 

Old Business

           

Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.

 

            New Business

           

Ms Joseph asked if there was any new business.   

 

·         Crozet Downtown Update – The question was asked when that project was instigated by the county and what our contract was for that project.

 

Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution of intent on September 6, 2006 to pursue this downtown zoning amendment.  From that point on it was a process of developing a scope of work, going through the procurement process, interviewing and ultimately negotiating and hiring a consultant.   The consultant is now on board and has begun work under a contract for $75,000. 

 

Ms. Joseph asked staff to elaborate because staff had indicated that this zoning classification or district may be able to be used in other areas.

 

Mr. Cilimberg replied that this will provide an analysis as to what kind of district best works for a town center or downtown kind of setting.  It may be a base district or an overlay district. But, it certainly has the potential of being used in other similar circumstances.  They don’t have any existing downtowns per say in the county, but as in Places 29 as an example, there is an uptown and a mid-town proposal.  It may very well be a district that can be used in those cases or in some varied form. This is a good exercise to go through.  Obviously, they have a place where there is a defined need expressed by business owners who, along with the Crozet Council, requested that the Board authorize and have staff pursue this particular district.

 

Mr. Strucko asked what the advantages of this district would be.

 

Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was going to deal with a variety of aspects of zoning that are not available in conventional districts, such as the relationship of buildings to streets, parking requirements and potentially height and setbacks.  It would potentially be different from what the conventional districts would allow.  Most of the downtown zoning is conventional commercial, which would require a rezoning of property to Neighborhood Model District under current provisions.  This particular district will be more suited to a downtown center type of situation.  It also will include a recommendation as to whether or not this is a rezoning that the county wants to go ahead and pursue independent of having individual property owners seek rezoning .  Essentially the district could be put in place by the county for use by businesses and properties that are in the downtown area without having to go through a rezoning process.  That will be part of the outcome as to the recommendation.

 

Ms. Joseph noted concerns with that aspect. If the county does the rezoning, then everything is by right and any help with proffers for infrastructure would be gone.

 

Mr. Cilimberg said that it is really interesting because the county has not typically done that in the past.  Whereas, the city does that all of the time because they want to encourage the type of development they are getting.  It is something that has to be decided in the outcome of this particular district’s approval and whether that is something the county wants to apply as an initiative of the county or wait and have it applied for by applicants.

 

Mr. Zobrist said that they were trying to master plan what they do there and then bring in zoning to conform it at the initiative of the county to tell people exactly what they expect and to get it to look and feel the way they want it to.

.

Mr. Cilimberg replied that the recommendation of the Crozet Master Plan was to do that.

 

Mr. Kamptner asked if the boundaries of the downtown have been defined yet.

 

Mr. Cilimberg replied that he was not sure if they have.  It is very early.  But, that is part of what the consultant needs to provide their recommendation on.  They have talked about CT-6 and potentially some of the CT-5 areas that are around the downtown, but it was not actually specified in the scope of work. 

 

·         Rivanna Village Master Plan.

 

Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Rivanna Village Master Plan was the next one in the order of things. The expectation in the work plan was that they would be getting Rivanna started at the time they were concluding their work on Pantops so that they would have the staff resources to devote to the master plan.  They are going to utilize the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for this particular master plan. They will have a contract with them.  It looks like it will be no more than $85,000, but probably somewhat less than that.  There is funding actually for that in the budget and through a proffer that they received with one of the earlier rezonings for Glenmore.  They are hoping to bring the Commission an overview with the processing schedule for that work by June.  The kick off normally with master plans is the planning academy. It is now very close at hand to begin.

 

·         Joint City/County Planning Commission Meeting.

 

Last week Mr. Cilimberg and Ms. Joseph had a meeting with City staff, Ms. Creasy and Mr. Fink, the Chair of the City Planning Commission.  The joint City/County Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 15 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 320, which is a third floor conference room. Last week they concluded that for this first joint meeting they would have it information based rather than issue based and to allow discussion after staff makes some fairly short presentations on the city and county land use plans and the activities in particular that are in the border areas of the city and county.  It will basically be on what is going on in those areas. Therefore, they could get a view of what is happening in the city that may have a relationship to the county and the city commissioners will get the same from county staff.  They would talk in general about the land use plan and what is being proposed.  Advance information will be available online regarding the City/County Comp Plans and master plan information underway. The city has a Comp Plan review underway.  Maps will be on display at the meeting of the land use plans, zoning and entrance corridor locations. Ms. Joseph and John Fink will frame the discussion for the Commissioners.  It will be a fairly informal setting.

 

·         Biscuit Run Hearing on May 29.

 

The values for the proffers that had been added to the Fiscal Impact Study were questioned previously.  Staff is going to do an update of that for the Commission’s staff report for May 29.

 

The suggestion was made that the City Planning Commission be invited to the public hearing on May 29 to give input on the proposal.

 

·         Scheduling Concerns.

 

The Commission asked staff to work on the schedule so that when there was only one item on the agenda that it could be moved to another meeting to allow that night off. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff was going to work on seeing how they can do that.  The problem with site plan and subdivisions is that they are on a fairly specific time line.  In the reviews done by staff it does not allow time to get the information to the Commission a week earlier and normally a week later would be beyond the 60 days in which a site plan or subdivision needs to be acted on.  He would talk with Current Development staff about this issue.  Each week staff plans to give the Commission a two month view of what is on the schedule. If there are any comments or suggestion, please let us know. 

 

·         Commission Request Regarding Erosion Issue.

 

The Commission asked Ms. McCulley to check on the erosion issue discussed with the Korean Church application and if the site plan for the Volvo Dealership and Kirtley property was approved to include the supplemental parking along the access.  It has nothing to do with the church, but is a problem that needs to be pursued.

 

·         Commissioners to be absent next week on May 8.

 

Ms. Joseph and Mr. Cannon will be absent at next week’s meeting.

 

Adjournment:

 

With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. to the Tuesday, May 8, 2007 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.