Albemarle County Planning Commission

July 21, 2009

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Marcia Joseph and Bill Edgerton, Acting Chair. Absent were Calvin Morris, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. 

 

Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Philip Custer, Engineer; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. 

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

SP-2009-00006 Kenridge

PROPOSED: Amendment to SP-2004-52 to change the approved application plan. Modification consists of revised location for access road and parking for the commercial building and the elimination of one of the single family attached units. Approved uses remain unchanged.

ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre)

SECTION: 23.2.2(9)  R-15 residential-15 units/acre

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5  unit/acre in development lots) in Neighborhood 7.

ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes

LOCATION: North side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf Course) Approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass.

TAX MAP/PARCELS: 60K/61 & A2

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller

(Claudette Grant)

 

Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.

 

·        The applicant is requesting to amend the approved Special Use Permit SP-2004-052.  The requested change consists of revising the location of the access road and parking for the office building and eliminating one of the single-family attached units.  The purpose of this public hearing is for the Commission to act on this request. 

 

·        The new access road was installed during site construction to provide access to the office building from Marsh Lane while the building was being used as the sales center for the project. The location of the graded in road and parking area was not shown on the approved plan. The applicant is now requesting approval of this location for the access road and parking to the office building instead of the approved access road and parking to the office building that is shown on the approved plan.   

 

·        Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:

 

1.         The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed.

 

·        Staff finds no factors unfavorable to this request.

 

·        Staff recommends conditional approval of SP 2009-006, Kenridge provided the applicant makes minor revisions to the conceptual plan prior to submitting the plan for the Board of Supervisors public hearing.

 

·        The conditions are the same as the ones previously approved, except for the plan change shown in condition 1, as follows.

 

1.                  The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan prepared by Collins Engineering McKee Carson, dated June 16, 2005 March 16, 2009 revision To be determined: 2009 (“Conceptual Plan”). (See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required;

 

Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.

 

Scott Collins, representative for Kenridge, LLC, noted that staff has done a wonderful job in laying out the request.  He offered to answer any questions the Commission may have in regards to what they are proposing at this time. 

 

Mr. Edgerton invited questions for Mr. Collins from the Commission.

 

Ms. Joseph noted when she saw the site plan that was approved she really liked it.  When the Commission first looked at this there was just a slope going right back into those units and she kept trying to figure out how they were going to divert the water from just going into those units.  This plan has a series of three retaining walls on it and it looked like a very eloquent plan in answer to what was going to happen.  This is difficult because this plan is so far superior to just blasting in that road.  They have two parallel roads now.  They have one unit that sits to the side of one of the roads that is separated by this road now. The plan is lovely with the three retaining walls coming down.  She could not read the elevations of the retaining walls, but it looks as if they are 3’ or 5’ stepping down the hill.  It gives the people a nice backyard and a lovely swale.  She asked if they are requesting this because the road has already been cut in there.  She was trying to figure out why they can’t do the plan that was approved.

 

Mr. Collins replied that the biggest issue was the retaining walls that they had to put in beside the single-family homes and the existing homes.  The 10’ retaining walls would be right next to these units and could be seen from Route 250.  It was not ideal from any aspect to put in such tall retaining walls to try to force a road in at 10 percent grade from Colridge Road up to the office building.   

 

Ms. Joseph asked on Sheet 3 of the site plan layout if he was talking about the retaining wall behind units 62, 63, 64 and 65 being 10’ tall. 

 

Mr. Collins replied no that he was talking about the retaining wall between units 12 and 65.  In trying to get that road through there was going to be very hard.  The retaining wall that is shown behind units 62, 63, 64 and 65 is still going to be there.  That is no going to go away.  That is still fairly necessary. 

 

Ms. Joseph noted that she was trying to figure out what was going on here.  She asked if he was saying to put that road in would require jumping up 10’.

 

Mr. Collins replied that basically cutting that road between units 12 and 65 is ten percent at a maximum and is going straight up.  But units 12 and 65 are basically a flat house and the yards just go straight back.  So they would have a road going up 10 percent next to a yard that is flat.  It starts at 2’ at the road and at the back of the house people would be looking at a 10’ to 12’ wall.

 

Ms. Joseph said that the 10’ wall would be visible from the occupants of the house and not from the Entrance Corridor. 

 

Mr. Collins pointed out that actually that wall was visible from the Entrance Corridor as well.  All of the exhibits done for the ARB during their review did show that wall being visible from the Entrance Corridor.

 

Mr. Edgerton invited public comment.  There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.

 

Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to approve SP-2009-00006 Kenridge subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report with minor revisions to the conceptual plan with administrative approval by staff. 

 

  1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan prepared by Collins Engineering, dated March 16, 2009 revision To be determined: 2009. (See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required;
  2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy five (275) feet between the
    1. southern-most structure (the “Main House”) and the property line adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan;
  3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property. All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG;
  4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval, the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28;
  5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows:
    1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide other security (“security”) acceptable to the County in an amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of Community Development; and
    2. If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County’s Engineer approve the signal’s installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant’s pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand.
  6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on eight (8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas. Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent property and the impact of the railroad on this development;
  7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation Planner;
  8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development;
  9. Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone (A) the exteriors of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick, with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in Zone (A) shall be red brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone (A) shall be reviewed and approved by the ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings. The exteriors of detached residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick. These materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit for the buildings (See Attachment C);
  10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate;
  11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, Landscape Architect. (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner’s Association which shall be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone;
  12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-five (275) foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County’s Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site plans, and subdivision plats;
  13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state: “The existing site wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening of the proposed entrance into the site." Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250;
  14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors, roofing, siding and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units, as determined by the Design Planner;
  15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit. The acceptance of this special use permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution;
  16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House; and
  17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development.

 

Ms. Echols asked if that included all of the conditions listed in the staff report, and Ms. Porterfield replied yes.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.

 

Mr. Edgerton said that SP-2009-00006 Kenridge would go to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions of approval as modified by the Planning Commission.

 

 

 

Return to exec summary