Charlottesville : July 13, 2010

MINUTES
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010 -- 5:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Commissioners Present:

Mr. Jason Pearson (Chairman)

Ms. Genevieve Keller (Vice-Chairman)

Mr. Michael Osteen

Mr. Dan Rosensweig

Mr. Kurt Keesecker

Mr. John Santoski

Absent: Mr. David Neuman

Staff Present:

Mr. Jim Tolbert, AICP, Director NDS

Ms. Missy Creasy, AICP, Planning Manager

Mr. Nick Rogers, AICP, Neighborhood Planner

Mr. Brian Haluska, AICP, Neighborhood Planner

Mr. Michael Smith, Planning Assistant

City Council Members Present:

Mr. Dave Norris, Mayor

Mr. Satyendra Huja

Ms. Holly Edwards

Mr. David E. Brown

Also Present:

Mr. Richard Harris, Deputy City Attorney

II. REGULAR MEETING

Mr. Pearson convened the meeting at 5:34 PM

A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT

Mr. Santoski informed the Commission that the PAC Tech meeting scheduled for later in the week had been cancelled and instead invitations had been sent out for the Transit Review meeting scheduled Thursday from 2-5 PM.
Mr. Osteen discussed the issues addressed during the June 15^th BAR meeting. Several commercial and residential revisions were presented in that meeting, in particular the “Water House” project located at 218 West Water St.. In regards to the broader community, the BAR discussed establishing the Martha Jefferson neighborhood as a historic conservation district. The BAR decided to defer and further examine the inherit features of what constitutes a conservation district.
Ms. Keller had no formal report; however, she did take the time to thank previous Commissioner Bill Emory on his time spent on the Commission.
Mr. Rosensweig informed the Commission that on June 16,^th the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council toured the construction site of the Boys and Girls Club Aquatic and Fitness Center located at Buford School. The grand opening is set to occur sometime in middle to late September. Also, the Housing Advisory Committee met to discuss setting spending priorities on housing. Mr. Rosensweig encouraged the public to forward any suggestions towards spending priorities to him.
Mr. Keesecker informed Commission the MPO Tech committee did not meet this month.

B. UNIVERSITY REPORT

Mr. Neuman was absent for the July 13^th meeting.

C. CHAIR'S REPORT

Mr. Pearson discussed the non-profit, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Corporation, that the TJPDC is moving forward with. TJPDC is currently seeking six members, independent of TJPDC, for the non-profit’s board of directors. The six independent members will sit among six members pulled from the commission. Mr. Pearson requests any recommendations for appropriate candidates please be forwarded to him or Stephen Williams, Executive Director of TJPDC.

D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS/STAFF REPORTS/WORK PLAN UPDATES

Ms. Creasy noted the Transit Forum occurring Thursday, July 15^th at City Space. She informed the Commission NDS staff is still awaiting applications for an Assistant to Boards and Commissions. Ms. Creasy mentioned materials for the Cherry Avenue Plan Initiative would be given to Commissioners after the meeting. Also, the Planning Commission work session is planned to occur July 27^th. The work session will begin with an overview of mixed-use corridors and that discussion should serve as a good transition into the comprehensive plan review process.

E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA

Ms. Andrea Wieder, 2331 Highland Ave- Ms. Wieder discussed the landscape amendment associated with Huntley PUD. She disagreed with the amendment and expressed concern over the loss of ten mature trees. She commented on the interest the neighborhood has with this development and majority of residents emphasize preservation of trees.

Ms. Katie Kellet, 2411 Jefferson Park Avenue – Ms. Kellet raised questions about the landscape amendment for the Huntley PUD. Her big concern was tree protection and replacement of mature trees. She believes erosion and sediment control within the PUD has been administered poorly with poor oversight from city staff.

Ms. Kay Slaughter, 1501 Short 18 St., SELC. Ms. Slaughter spoke about the critical slopes ordinance and how the level of interest towards this issue has risen. She mentioned that the public desires a broader ordinance. She encouraged Commission to really consider the public opinion on this matter. Towards the end of her presentation, Ms. Slaughter presented Mr. Pearson a summary of what the SELC had proposed for the ordinance.

Mr. Bill Emory, 1604 East Market St. - Mr. Emory spoke on more transparency within the Commission by suggesting commission packets convert into digital format. Mr. Emory believes this would instill effective participation among citizens and commission during meetings.

F. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Site Plan and Subdivision approval list

2. Minutes - May 10, 2010 – Regular meeting

3. Minutes - May 25, 2010 – Work session

4. Minutes - June 8, 2010 – Regular meeting

5. Minutes – June 8, 2010 – Pre Meeting

6. Minutes-June 22, 2010- Work Session

7. Request for initiation of zoning text and map amendments - The purpose of initiating these amendments is to allow formal consideration of the applications. These items will be scheduled for future public hearings if initiated:

a. Critical Slope Ordinance Revision

b. Commercial and Mixed Use Zoning Use Matrix

c. State Legislature Required Updates

Ms. Keller decided to pull item 7c for purpose of public information.

Mr. Pearson noted items 2 and 3 were not actually included in packet so those are not included in consent agenda.

Ms. Keller mentioned there a few amendments to the June 8^th and June 22^nd minutes she would like to add and provided those for correction.

With exception to items 2, 3, and 7c, Mr. Pearson called for motion on the consent agenda.

Ms. Keller moved for approval

Mr. Rosensweig seconded.

All in favor. Consent Agenda passed

Ms. Creasy mentions items 2 and 3 of the agenda were not received and staff is currently addressing that issue. Ms. Creasy then explained item 7c.

Mr. Pearson called for motion on item 7c. Ms Keller approved motion with Mr. Keesecker seconding that motion. All in favor, motion passed.

III. JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS

G. JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. SP-10-05-11 – (1204 West Main Street) An application for a special use permit for the mixed use building at 1204 West Main Street. This request is for increased building height up to ninety feet, four inches (90’4”). The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 10 Parcel 60 having 244 feet of frontage on West Main Street. The site is zoned West Main South with Historic Overlay and is approximately 1.04 acres or 45,302 square feet. The general uses called for in the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan are for Mixed Use. Report prepared by Nick Rogers, Neighborhood Planner.

Mr. Rogers gave the staff report. He also spoke to additional concerns about traffic and increased parking congestion.

Several questions were discussed by the staff and commission.

The applicant, Fred Missel of 3636 Gardengate Court, North Gardens, spoke on behalf of the UVA Foundation in regards to the project. His main point of clarification was that the request for building height would not create an additional floor. The addition in height is due to specifics involving mechanical equipment and floor to floor requirements.

Mr. Pearson questioned why the applicant preferred the language retail-active instead of retail-commercial when describing the use of the ground floor space.

The applicant responded by explaining a teen health center would occupy the space. The applicant believes that the health center has a much broader perspective than similar medical programs and would create desirable activity on the street.

Mayor Norris asked for the average number of people currently using the teen health center.

The applicant was unable to respond on an exact number; however, mentioned 75% of patrons represented the city and county.

Mayor Norris believes the health center will satisfy the desire for an active-use on the ground floor of the building.

Mr. Tolbert spoke concerning the streetscape plan and its relationship with the West Main Street plan completed in 2004. Mr. Tolbert encouraged the Commission to request conditions for the ground floor space to stay in line with the vision the city has for an active, vibrant streetscape.

Mr. Pearson opened the public hearing.

With no one wishing to speak to the matter, Mr. Pearson closed the public hearing and called for discussion among the Commissioners.

Ms. Keller and Mr. Osteen both agreed this building was in compliance with the original West Main St. plan. They both saw no problem with increased height.

Mr. Keesecker was unsure about relationship between increased height and ground floor use.

Ms. Keller believed the Commission should review this building in the context of the vision for West Main. In return for increased height, activity is still concentrated on ground floor.

Ms. Creasy suggested that the Commission be careful with retail-active language because there was nothing currently in the zoning ordinance that pertained to retail-active uses.

Mr. Rogers suggested tweaking the term “active-use.”

Mr. Huja informed Commission that retail-commercial is service use and the health center satisfies that intent.

Mr. Rosensweig was concerned about negative impacts of parking and if there were any provisions in the plan to encourage alternative transportation.

Applicant mentioned there would be two showers located in lower level as well as existing bike racks on the site.

Mr. Rosensweig moved for approval of the SUP up to 90 feet, 4 inches of building height on 1204 West Main St., Tax Map 10, Parcel 60 with the following conditions:

Ground floor frontage of building along West Main must be of retail, commercial-service, or other active-use which shall include front doors for public access
Applicant’s site plan must show improvements to frontage on West Main that substantially conforms to the “2004 West Main Open Space Concept and Streetscape Schematics” or updated concept as approved by the BAR.

Mr. Osteen seconded the motion.

Mr. Pearson called the question:

Santoski Yes

Osteen Yes

Keller Yes

Rosensweig Yes

Keesecker Yes

Pearson Yes

Motion Passes.

2. ZT-10-06-12 - (Townhouses) An ordinance to amend and reordain Section 34-389 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, to remove the density limitation for townhouse developments in order to eliminate conflicts with specific zoning district density requirements. Report prepared by Brian Haluska, Neighborhood Planner

Mr. Pearson recused himself from this item and passed the gavel to Ms. Keller.

Mr. Haluska presented his staff report. He emphasized that this ordinance will not allow unregulated density but will clarify a conflict in the code.

Ms. Keller opened the public hearing

Ms. Katrina Krezensic, 829 Nalle St- Supports the zoning text amendment. She believes the amendment will create small scale, dense development that allows for diversity in housing.

With no one else wishing to speak to the matter, Ms. Keller closed the public hearing and called for discussion among the Commissioners.

Several questions were discussed by the staff and Commission.

Mr. Osteen called for approval of motion to eliminate density restrictions on townhouses on the basis that the change serves the interest of the public necessity, general public welfare, and good zoning practices

Mr. Rosensweig seconded the motion

Ms. Keller called the question:

Santoski Yes

Osteen Yes

Keller Yes

Rosensweig Yes

Keesecker Yes

Motion Passed.

3. ZM-10-05-13 – (Jefferson School)-A petition to rezone the property located at 233 4^th Street NW from B-1 to B-2 Commercial. This property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map #32 as parcel 89 having approximately 507 feet of frontage on 4^th Street NW and containing approximately 161,607 square feet of land (3.71 acres). The general uses called for in the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan are for Public/Semi-Public. Report prepared by Nick Rogers, Neighborhood Planner.

Mr. Rogers presented his staff report. He expressed staff has some concerns about the long-term status of Jefferson School with the possibility of demolition if rezoned B-2, however, Mr. Rogers assured Commissioners Jefferson School has no intention of demolishing the structure.

Several questions were discussed by the staff and commission.

Mr. Huja commented on the objectionable uses listed within the staff report and that the applicant could request a deferral and issue a proffer statement to obtain a restaurant use within B-1 while not compromising the future of the structure.

L.J. Lopez, representing Jefferson School, commented on the historic tax credits the school is seeking through Department of Historic Resources and National Park Service. Mr. Lopez mentioned he was interested in the deferral process Mr. Huja had mentioned.

Mr. Pearson opened the public hearing.

With no one wishing to speak to the matter, Mr. Pearson closed the public hearing and called for discussion among the Commissioners.

The Planning Commission asked several questions for clarification, and then discussed the appropriateness of the application.

Mr. Pearson framed the discussion around the question of whether all Commissioners were comfortable approving a unilateral B-2 change.

Majority of Commissioners had reservations towards the possibility of unilaterally changing the zone to B-2; however, all commissioners were acceptable of café use.

Mr. Santoski presented the option of the applicant possibly applying a proffer statement towards all uses in B-2 except the café.

Ms. Creasy responded saying that was an option the applicant could use.

Mr. Pearson raised the question of whether all uses in B-2 could be administered through SUP.

Mr. Rosensweig supported this however he believes there are many uses in B-2 that should apply by-right.

Applicant felt that certain uses within B-2 will be acceptable for the site down the road.

Ms. Creasy suggested the applicant review which uses in B-2 might apply to Jefferson School

Applicant formally requested deferral of the application following the discussion.

4. ZT-10-06-14 – (Floor Area requirements in Mixed use districts) An ordinance to amend and reordain Sections 34-562, 34-580, 34-602, 34-619, 34-640, 34-662, 34-746, 34-766, 34-771, and 34-781 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, to modify and/or eliminate residential, non-residential, and commercial mixed use gross floor area percentage requirements in the following districts: Downtown, Downtown Extended, Downtown North, West Main North, West Main South, Cherry Avenue, Water Street, South Street, Corner and Central City. Presented by Brian Haluska, Neighborhood Planner

Mr. Haluska gave the staff report.

Mr. Rosensweig presented the question of whether or not commission could administer language in the code requiring ground floor commercial use in all mixed-use buildings and eliminate the 25% requirement all together

Mr. Harris suggested that the Commission review this more comprehensively which they agreed to do in the future.

Mr. Pearson opened the public hearing

Charlie Kabbash, 308 East Market St, Kabbash Real Estate- Noted that he believes the 25% requirement is a stumbling block for many developments. Retail on ground floor is his intention and supports the recommendation for establishing commercial uses across the board.

With no one else wishing to speak to the matter, Mr. Pearson closed the public hearing and called for discussion among the Commissioners.

The Planning Commission asked several questions for clarification, and then discussed the appropriateness of the application.

Ms. Keller called for an approval to motion a zoning text amendment to amend and reordain section 34-562(a), 34-746(a), 34-766(a), of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, to delete those sections; and to amend and reordain section 34-619, 34-640, to substitute language in each to read:

“No ground floor residential uses or parking garage other than ingress or egress to the garage may front on a primary street unless a building fronts on more than one primary street in which case ground floor residential uses may front on one primary street. Under no circumstances, however, shall any ground floor residential uses front on West Main St.”

I make this motion on the basis of public necessity, convenience, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice

Mr. Santoski seconded this motion.

Mr. Pearson called the question:

Santoski Yes

Osteen Yes

Keller Yes

Rosensweig Yes

Keesecker Yes

Pearson Yes

Motion Passed.

Mr. Rosensweig called for an approval to motion a zoning text amendment to amended and reordain section 34-771 to substitute language to read:

I make this motion on the basis that the changes would serve the interest of public necessity, convenience, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice.

Mr. Osteen seconded.

Mr. Pearson called the question:

Santoski Yes

Osteen Yes

Keller Yes

Rosensweig Yes

Keesecker Yes

Pearson Yes

Motion Passed.

Mr. Rosensweig motioned to institute study of Article 6, Chapter 34 as it relates to ground floor commercial requirements in mixed-use districts

Ms. Keller seconded.

Mr. Pearson called the question:

Santoski Yes

Osteen Yes

Keller Yes

Rosensweig Yes

Keesecker Yes

Motion Passed.

IV. REGULAR MEETING ITEMS (Continued)

H. Planning Commission Work Plan

a. Commercial Zoning Matrix

b. Critical Slopes Ordinance Revision

Commercial Zoning Matrix

Mr. Rogers gave his report.

Mr. Pearson asked if there was anyone in the audience present to participate in the workshop. No one in the audience responded.

Mr. Rosensweig disagreed with the staff analysis concerning IC districts. He believes the two IC districts receiving attention in this report should be reviewed separately.

Mr. Rogers responded to Mr. Rosensweig’s comments and agreed with Mr. Rosensweig’s analysis.

Ms. Keller asked for clarification of the concern for the information of the public Mr. Rogers obliged.

Mr. Pearson further clarified Mr. Rosensweig’s about splitting the IC into two zones.

Commissioners provided their input and concerns over the issue concerning IC zones.

Mr. Pearson addressed concerns over allowing any helicopter traffic into the city.

Ms. Keller raised concern over the B-1 zones and if the current B-1 zones were appropriate.

Mr. Pearson closed the workshop.

Critical Slopes Ordinance Revision

Mr. Haluska gave his report.

Mr. Pearson presented the Commissioners with the document he had been in conversation about with Mr. Haluska. The document explained Mr. Pearson’s vision towards addressing slope waivers and how Commissioners should evaluate granting a waiver.

Mr. Haluska expands on Mr. Pearson’s presentation by explaining the ordinance can potentially become tighter if Commission decides to consider only accepting a critical slope waiver if there is a public purpose.

Ms. Keller expressed concern over the slopes being reviewed within NDS becoming just another engineering exercise.

Mr. Rosensweig entertained the idea of identifying priority areas within the city and if a slope falls under a certain area then the slope is automatically critical.

Ms. Keller recommended a possible landscape planning workshop for staff to assist them in discussion with developers. She believes there should be design standards NDS staff should consider when reviewing sites with critical slopes.

Mr. Keesecker proposed the idea of selecting specific elements of slope that are categorized as “critical”, however, do not fall under a public purpose, and giving it its own tier for evaluation. He was uncomfortable with the idea of designating priority areas, but instead defining elements of a critical slope and give citizens an opportunity to designate their land as a critical slope to prevent future development.

Ms. Creasy encouraged Commissioners to keep applicants in mind during discussion. The more difficult this process becomes, the more concern the city receives from the public. A systematic solution to this issue is important to keep in mind.

Mr. Santoski believed there should be a strict approach towards approving a waiver. He believes if any slope falls over a certain percentage, for example 35%, then the Commission should automatically reject the waiver.

Mr. Pearson believes images of the slopes in discussion currently would be very helpful for the work session.

Mr. Rosensweig suggests an in-field meeting to view these slopes first-hand.

Mr. Pearson insisted that the Commission will write a code that explains in purely quantitative terms what makes a slope critical.

I. Critical Slopes

a. Kroger at Hydraulic Road

b. Longwood Drive PUD

Kroger

Mr. Rogers gave his staff report. Staff recommends approval based on the filterra device the applicant has implemented to mitigate the effects of storm water runoff.

Several questions were discussed by the staff and Commission.

Justin Fournier, representing Balzar and Associates, spoke on behalf of Kroger Mid-Atlantic.

Ms. Keller presented questions concerning the filterra device.

The applicant said there is a six month maintenance cycle and replacement of the filterra is part of the maintenance cycle. The applicant says there is no plan currently in place for the reuse of runoff water.

Ms. Creasy mentioned there is an oil/water separation device implemented in the plan.

Ms. Rosensweig asked about the mulch removal process from the filterra device

Mr. Fournier explained that the mulch is considered hazardous material and would be disposed of through certain guidelines and regulations.

Mr. Keesecker provided some thought on the actual success of the filterra device collecting and filtering storm water runoff.

Comment from above on motions

Mr. Osteen called for motion to approve the request for waiver under the requirements of critical slope provisions listed in section 34-1120(b) of the Charlottesville City Code for the proposed Kroger Fuel Center project located at Tax Map 40A, Parcel 2, otherwise known as 1904 Emmet Street on finding that alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes and intent of the critical slope provisions to an equivalent degree with the following condition:

1. The applicant must return to Planning Commission with a new design for approval if, after reviewing the water quality calculations in the next site plan submittal, the engineering staff finds that the applicant’s original claim that the design meets the pollutant removal rate requirements is no valid.

Mr. Santoski seconded.

Mr. Pearson called the question:

Santoski Yes

Osteen Yes

Keller Yes

Rosensweig Abstain

Keesecker No

Pearson Yes

Motion passes.

Longwood Drive PUD

Mr. Osteen recused himself from this item

Mr. Haluska gave his report.

Several questions were discussed by the staff and Commission.

Richard Spurzem, Lake Road, Charlottesville believes that if the critical slope waiver is not granted then the project cannot be developed and the use of the property is completely restricted. Mr. Spurzem believes the undisturbed slopes serve no benefit to the city.

Mr. Pearson was curious about whether the applicant had received undue hardship considering his development had been approved for rezoning initially.

Mr. Harris believed no undue hardship had occurred here because the rezoning and critical slope waiver are independent processes.

Commissioners discussed whether there was enough information provided from applicant to proceed with the waiver review.

Neal Wright, Dominion Engineering, proceeded to explain the steps the development team is taking to mitigate storm water runoff and minimize potential harm to the slopes.

Mr. Pearson asked all Commissioners if there was enough information for review. All Commissioners believed there was not enough information.

Mr. Harris suggested the Commission consider a deferral of the application based on the fact that there was not enough information to deny or approve and provide feedback to the applicant for next steps.

Mr. Pearson deferred this application for a critical slope waiver until next month based on the fact there was not enough information to prove this development served a public purpose, negating the review of the subsequent site plan.

J. Site Plans

a. Longwood Drive

b. Huntley PUD( Landscape Plan Amendment)

Huntley PUD

Mr. Santoski recused himself from this item.

Mr. Haluska gave his staff report. The key issue is determining if the change the applicant is requesting constitutes a change in the PUD concept plan.

Mr. Rosensweig assured the other commissioners his opinions would be impartial although he had engaged in conversation with the applicant and neighbors of the project prior to the meeting.

The applicant, Paul Beyer of 201 Huntley Ave, spoke as a proponent for the elimination the ten mature trees. Mr. Beyer opposed the construction of retaining walls due to their negative impacts involving the safety of the residents. Mr. Beyer believes many residents of the neighborhood agree retaining walls are not a good alternative in this situation. The proposals Mr. Beyer has presented to Commission are the planting of twenty five 2’’ caliper trees or fifty 1’’ caliper trees. Mr. Beyer acknowledge the fact that although the amendment requests demolishing 10 mature trees, the replanting will provide a much larger tree canopy within the neighborhood.

Mr. Keesecker asked the applicant if there was any possibility a retaining wall could still be developed as the project progressed.

Mr. Beyer emphasized his intention was to avoid any retaining walls.

The Planning Commission asked several questions for clarification, and then discussed the appropriateness of the application.

Comment on vote from above

Mr. Osteen moved to approve site plan amendment Tax Map 18A, Parcels 98, 99,118, and 119 located on Huntley Avenue with the following conditions:

Re-grading required will result in a minimum amount of retaining walls with none to exceed the height that would require guardrail.
Applicant must provide a minimum of 75 trees with the maximum set at 200
Applicant must consult with city arborist concerning the location, species, and caliper of trees.
Applicant must provide tree species and location designations.
Enhanced erosion control measure will be implemented on newly disturbed soil.
Reforest land within approximate limits of clearance noted on concept plan as best as possible.
Update NDS staff with letter documenting conditions of trees after two years of replanting.

Mr. Keesecker seconded.

Mr. Pearson called the question:

Osteen Yes

Keller Abstain

Rosensweig Yes

Keesecker Yes

Pearson Yes

Motion Passes.

K. Ordinance Amendment Discussion

a. Driveways

Driveways

Mr. Rogers presented his staff report.

Several questions were discussed by the staff and Commission.

Ms. Keller was hesitant to apply the ordinance city wide with the potential for areas near UVA to expand driveways for the economic gains during big events where parking is sparse.

Mr. Rogers suggested implementing an option where NDS Director could appeal the waiver to Planning Commission. Commissioners agreed staff should work to incorporate this into the ordinance.

A majority of Commissioners agreed that a combination of option #2 and option #4 would be the logical solution.

Mr. Pearson recommended an alternative option #4 which would not seem as confusing.

Ms. Keller adjourned the meeting at 11:38 P.M.