HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 09 85 PC MinutesJuly 9, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 9, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr.
David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. James
Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mrs. Marcia Joseph,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Ms. Norma Diehl and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex Officio.
The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the June 18 and June 25 meetings were approved
as written.
ZTA 85-5 - Resolution of Intent to amend Section 10.0 RA, Rural Areas
district to provide for "fitness resort" as a use by special use permit;
to amend Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS to define "fitness resort" and
to amend Section 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS to include pro-
visions for fitness resort, of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler reported that the applicant (Mr. Zuckerman) had
requested that his application be withdrawn.
The applicant's request for withdrawal was unanimously approved.
ZMA-85-15 George A. Bowles - Request to amend the Four Seasons
PUD to expand the existing recreational building by 25,500 square
feet to include recreational facilities such as racquetball
courts, locker rooms, children's activity room, fitness/
weight room, gymnasium. Property described as Tax Map 61X(1),
parcels 4 and 4A, and Tax Map 61X(2), parcels 4B, 4C, 4D, is
located on the northeast side of Four Seasons Drive property
formerly in use as the clubhouse. Total acreage of site is
11.81 acres. Charlottesville Magisterial district.
Mr. Keeler stated that staff had recommended approval of this
application, subject to conditions, at the July 2, meeting, and
the matter had been deferred to allow the applicant time to
reach an agreement with the residents of Four Seasons.
The Chairman determined that such an agreement had been reached.
Mr. Bowles, the applicant, and Mr. Johnson, representing the
homeowners, confirmed that this was so.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
July 9, 1985
Page 2
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-15 for George A. Bowles be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan to include
method of outdoor lighting, screening/landscaping
provision and (if deemed warranted) location of
pedestrian access;
2. Zoning Administrator approval of parking prior to each
phase of development;
3. Building expansion shall not exceed 25,500 square feet.
Building height shall not exceed height of existing
clubhouse by more than ten (10) percent.
4. Hours of operation to be determined at time of site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on July 17 (subject to change).
Since the meeting was running ahead of agenda time, Mr. Bowerman
presented a report on the School Facilities Committee. He
made the following comments:
--The three areas discussed in the report received from
KDA Associates were population projections, enrollment
projections, and the specific question of the Meriwether
Lewis - Murray schools and Scottsville -Yancey.
--Population is expected to increase by 20,000 between 1985
and 2002. School -age population, 1985-1990, will have a
net increase of 500 students (1,000 increase in elementary
schools/500 decrease in high schools).
--The consultant had determined that the useful life of
Meriwether Lewis has passed and it would be uneconomical
to rehabilitate the structure. It was recommended that the
structire be closed within the next two years.
--Murray should not be expanded at the present time, but
could be at a later time if enrollment increases warrant.
--It was recommended that $250,000 be appropriated in the
1985-86 CIP to study a new school and to cover land
acquisition costs for a new facility to replace Meriwether
Lewis in the vicinity north of Ivy. An additional
$4,750,000 to be appropriated 1986-87 for construction
of that facility. The entire enrollment of Meriwether
Lewis would be moved to that new facility and the old
building would be closed. If Murray had to be improved
at a later time, the students could be moved to the
new facility as could students at Crozet if that
facility is improved at a future date.
--The possibility of another school, within the next ten
to fifteen years, in the northwest section of the County
was discussed, to accommodate the population increases
in the Crozet and Ivy areas.
1,5,3
July 9, 1985
Page 3
--No improvements were recommended currently for Scottsville
and Yancey.
--It was recommended that Yancey should be brought up to
standards to more closely match Scottsville in terms of
auditorium, audio-visual learning aids, etc.
Turtle Creek, Phase VI, Site Plan - Located on north side of
Commonwealth Drive on Northwest Drive just east of its inter-
section of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road). Proposal to locate 79
units on 5.5 acre site, the applicant proposes density bonuses
based on (1) maintenance of wooded area, (2) significant land-
scaping, (3) separate pedestrian circulation. Zoned R-10, Tax
Map 61W, parcel 22, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that several
letters of opposition had been received. She explained further
that of the three proposed bonuses, staff supports only one --
significant landscaping and that the applicant is aware of
staff's position. She also stated that staff is recommending
denial of the proposal because it will not meet the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance based on the inadequacy of the proposed
density bonuses. Ms. Patterson confirmed that if approval was
granted, the Commission would need to determine which, if any
of the bonus factors will be accepted, and how many units are
being approved. She stated the conditions of approval would
apply regardless of how many units might be approved.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Tom Wyant, architect for the project, addressed the Com-
mission. He stated additional drawings would be provided
as requested by staff. (Staff had indicated that the drawings
submitted were illegible.) He stated he did not feel the
proposed density was unreasonable and that all units proposed
were one -bedroom in an effort to keep the number of residents
down.
Mr. Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission
and indicated he could foresee no problems in complying with the
conditions of staff.
Mr. Bill Heischman, the owner of the property, addressed the
Commission. He explained that at one time the property had
been zoned Business, was downzoned to R-15 and then downzoned
again to R-10. He stated he had not fought the downzoning
because the Planning Department had led him to believe he
could still get the desired density through bonuses. He
further explained that he had been required to construct
Commonwealth Drive (between the time of the R-15 zoning and the
R-10) when the only thing he owned on Commonwealth Drive was
the current site for Elder Care and this current five acres
of land. He explained the construction of the road had
cost $269,000 and the other part of Turtle Creek does not
use Commonwealth Drive. The road was dedicated to the State
and is used by the County as a north -south access. He indicated
/,:4h`
July 9, 1985 Page 4
he felt the County had not treated him fairly.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bob Crytzer, representing the Oak Forest Neighborhood Assoc-
iation, addressed the Commission. He stated the residents of
his neighborhood were opposed to the bonuses for the following
reasons:
--The wooded areas are not a part of the buildable area.
--The buffer area would be required in any case and does
not deserve a bonus.
--Questioned whether it would be possible to retain
the buffer area if a jogging path were to be installed.
--Jogging path would be detrimental to the security of
the neighborhood.
--Landscaping proposed was not extensive enough to warrant
a bonus.
Mr. Crytzer stated he had obtained 64 signatures, out of a
neighborhood of 75, opposing the bonuses.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Payne pointed out to the Commission that the pending possible
deletion of the bonuses is not yet law and the Commission is
required to apply the bonuses where applicable. Thus, it is
up to the Commission to decide if the bonuses have been earned
by this applicant.
Regarding the Commonwealth Drive issue as referred to by Mr.
Heischman, Mr. Keeler explained that an agreement had been
reached between the County, the Highway Department, Mr.
Heischman and Dr. Hurt at the time which involved traffic
generation. At that time it was planned that all of Turtle
Creek would use Commonwealth Drive, but all of it currently
goes out onto Hydraulic Road. He stated that in that regard
Mr. Heischman is correct, i.e, that he spent a lot of money
on the road with the idea that he could put a lot of traffic
on it, but the change in zoning is not going to give him that
opportunity.
Mr. Heischman confirmed that he had been responsible for
building that portion of the road from Hydraulic Road
to Jefferson Towne, beyond the entrance to Elder Care.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Ms. Patterson stated
Elder Care is zoned C-1, Oak Forest R-4, Jefferson Towne R-15,
and the original Turtle Creek R-10 with bonuses. Two acres
adjacent to Hydraulic Road are zoned C-1 and the duplexes are
zoned residential. It was determined the density of the
existing Turtle Creek is 15/acre.
C
Mr. Skove stated that, in light of the zoning, he did not
feel the proposal was approvable without the bonuses, thus *00
approval was dependent on the acceptance of the bonuses.
July 9, 1985
Page 5
Mr. Skove added that he did not feel the maintenance of the
wooded area was "over and above" the usual, and regarding
separate pedestrian circulation (jogging path), he felt
sidewalks had been intended.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Skove and
added that he did not feel the proposed landscaping was
"significant."
Mr. Skove stated he was uncertain about the bonus for significant
landscaping, but that he definitely could not support the
bonus for maintenance of existing wooded areas nor for the
pedestrian system.
Mr. Cogan stated he understood that the proposal would have
to be approved either for the total 79 units (24 of which are
for density bonuses) or not approved at all, that the
Commission was not in a position to "compromise" the proposal.
Mr. Payne indicated this was true, and pointed out that if
a site plan is denied, a reason must be given for denial and
the applicant must be advised as to what would be required
for the application to be approved. Mr. Payne stated he
felt it was the consensus of the Commission that the application
definitely would not be approvable for more than 66 units
(allowing the bonus for landscaping - 11 units) and it was
uncertain as to whether or not this bonus could be granted
based on the design that had been submitted.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that he was considering the bonus
for landscaping strictly in relation to this plan only and it
was in no way connected to the Commissionb treatment of the
bonus issue as a whole.
Mr. Skove asked Ms. Patterson to explain what she felt was
"significant" about the landscape plan. Ms. Patterson
stated that the applicant has proposed more trees than
would normally be required along existing and proposed streets.
It was determined the trees were proposed for both Commonwealth
Drive and Northwest Drive, though it was pointed out it was
difficult to tell what was actually proposed because of the
state of the drawing.
Mr. Michel stated that the proposed landscape plan is
"significant" when compared to what is required in the ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he could support the landscape bonus
but that he agreed with staff regarding the other two bonuses.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the site plan was
not approvable with the bonuses for wooded areas and pedestrian
system, but that it could be approvable with the bonus for
landscaping.
1Z
July 9, 1985
Page 6
Though Mr. Bowerman suggested that the approval might be
granted at this time for 66 units, with staff approval of
an amended site plan, it was the consensus of the Commission
that the site plan should be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved that the Turtle Creek, Phase VI, Site Plan be
denied because the proposal for maintenance of wooded areas
and pedestrian system were not significant enough to
warrant bonuses and the plan was not in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
It was determined the bonus for landscaping was probably
approvable but that a more legible site plan needed to be
submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Michel indicated he was in favor of Mr. Bowerman's suggestion
to approve the 66 units now and grant staff approval of a
final site plan.
Mr. Cogan stated he was not in favor of this since the site
plan was not legible enough to be able to determine what the
landscaping actually is.
The above -stated motion for denial was approved (4:2) with
Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Gould and Mr. Skove voting for,
and Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Michel voting against.
Dun Lora Preliminary Plat - Located on the east side of Route
631 (Rio Road) north of its intersection with Route 769 on the
private road to Dun Lora Estate. Proposal to create 6 lots with
an average size of 77.03 acres of a total 462.20 acres. Zoned
R-4. Tax Map 62, parcels 16 and 16A. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She confirmed that
the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway road would only effect this
property at the entrance to Rio Road.
Mr. Bowerman indicated this was confusing since it seems that
the rest of the Meadow Creek Parkway road would run through the
parcel. Ms. Patterson explained the only issue is where
existing and proposed roads are located and the Parkway has
not been planned from Rt. 631 out to the airport. Mr. Payne
explained that in the area of the entrance, at some point
in time, the road would have to be dedicated by the developer.
He stated that the part toward the back would not serve this
property so the issue would not be one of dedication, but
rather of reservation.
19
1�7
July 9, 1985 Page 7
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He explained the current proposal is an attempt
to resolve a difficult inheritance issue. He explained that
all of Dun Lora is currently zoned R-4 but there are no
current plans to develop the property. He stated that if
a section ever is developed, it will be that section that
is in the front along Rio Road and Dun Lora Road. He asked
that Dun Lora road be left a private road since a lot of
development is not envisioned, particularly beyond Town
Branch. He felt that construction of anything other than
a private street commercial entrance at this time would
be useless since if the property is developed in the near
future, it would all have to be changed. He indicated the
applicants would not be opposed to bonding a commercial
entrance. Regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway, Mr. Foster
indicated he felt it was not possible, at this time, to
ascertain the alignment of that road and to tie it in
to this property in relation to reservations was premature.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if it was possible to reserve
a dedication of this nature without tying it down specifically.
•
Mr. Payne indicated care should be taken to distinguish between
dedicating and reserving. Reserving is designating a portion
of the property that is not to be built on. He stated he did
not feel this was a significant issue at this stage of
development. He stated that it is very clear that it is not
appropriate to require any dedication of this road except
possibly at the front where it coincides with the entrance
to the development if the Commission chooses to make that a
public road. He stated that he was in agreement with staff
that, in this case, it was probably better to leave this a private
road because there is likely to be further development and the
County will have greater flexibility in not requiring a public
road.
Mr. Payne stated that condition (l.d)--Reservation of building
setback from right-of-way for Meadow Creek Parkway... --was
appropriate but emphasized that this does not mean that this
property is being conveyed to the County nor is it being
required to be dedicated to the County at a later time.
Mr. Payne agreed with Mr. Foster that there are some major
engineering problems with the Meadow Creek Parkway that
may result in its alignment being significantly changed.
Mr. Foster indicated he was opposed to even a tentative
alignment of the Parkway at this time as it could wrongly
influence how the property is built on. He felt making
reservations at this point could possibly do more harm than
good. However, he stated he would not be opposed to
reservation at the entrance since it does appear that it
will be necessary in that area.
lief
July 9, 1985
Page 8
Mr. Winn, an attorney representing some of the property owners,
addressed the Commission and indicated he was in agreement with
Mr. Foster.
Mr. Michel indicated he was only concerned with the section
at the entrance and would like to see that issue addressed.
Mr. Payne stated he viewed this plan as being so preliminary
in nature that most of the issues can be deferred.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Michel stated, that in view of the fact that this is truly
an estate matter, he was not overly concerned about the road
being a private one. He added that he was somewhat confused
as to whether or not the condition requiring reservation of
a building setback (l.d) should be dropped altogether or should
be modified to include just the front section at the entrance.
As proposed by Mr. Skove, it was determined condition (l.d) should
be changed to read as follows:
0 Reservation of right-of-way for Meadow Creek Parkway
where it is substantially coincidental with existing
Dun Lora Road.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer.
He offered the following comments:
--It should be possible to determine the right-of-way
requirements at the entrance at Rio Road.
--He was not comfortable with requiring that reservation
be made for the rest of Meadow Creek Parkway at
this time, since resources are not currently available
for him to make this determination.
--He indicated he was opposed to a private road since
this will set a precedent for the development of the
back lots to use a private road also.
--He felt it was important that a road be planned at
this time, whether it is built now or not, through
this property so that it could tie into Rt. 651 or
someother point that would tie into Northfields.
--The road could be a private road for a long time to come,
but it should be designed and bonded at this time as
a public road to prevent future problems.
Mr. Elrod stated that bonds are renewed each year at a cost of
2%. He estimated the road would be approximately one mile
long and could be designed as a rural cross section at an
approximate cost of $200,000 to $500,000.
Mr. Payne pointed out that, to a degree, this a matter that
the owners can control now and it will have a substantial effect
on the value of the property. He stated that if there is a deed
/S
July 9, 1985 Page 9
of partition there will be provisions for realigning the road
and possibly dedication to public use, etc. He agreed with
Mr. Elrod's feeling that problems will arise if the back
parcels start to be developed and the road is a private one.
He stated the Commission has three options: (1) Follow
Mr. Elrod's suggestion, which is the most prudent, front-end
thing to do, though burdensome for the front-end cost;
(2) Advise the applicant now that if the option to develop
this land in the future is to be left open, he should make
sure a deed of partition contains those provisions; or (3)
Allow the applicants to "make their own bed" and face the
problems sometime in the future.
Mr. Payne indicated he was in favor of the third option.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was in favor of the third option also, i.e.
"letting nature take its course." He indicated he would not be
opposed to a private road, since it seemed to fit in with the
current proposal. He felt this should have no bearing on
future decisions since any proposal made would have to meet
the ordinance requirements in effect at the time.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Dun Lora Preliminary Plat be
approved, with approval of a private road and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit, if applicable;
b. Obtaining reservation of necessary right-of-way
for future right turn lane and/or for shifting
entrance onto Route 631;
C. VDH&T approval of private street commercial entrance;
d. Reservation of right-of-way for Meadow Creek
Parkway, where it is substantially coincidental with
existing Dun Lora Road.
e. Health Department approval;
2. Only one dwelling allowed per parcel on private road except
waiver of 18-36a to allow two existing dwellings on
parcel 4.
a. County Engineer approval of private road and
drainage plans;
b. County Engineer and VDH&T approval of alignment and
vertical/horizontal curvature of the future public
road, to be shown on plat; (This condition was
deleted later on in the meeting.)
C. County Attorney approval of private road
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Ifl-0
July 9, 1985 Page 10
The meeting recessed at 9:20; reconvened at 9:30
After the meeting was reconvened, Mr. Foster asked that the
Dun Lora preliminary plat be placed back on the table in order
to clear up condition (2.b).
The Dun Lora preliminary plat was unanimously placed back on
the table.
Mr. Foster's question was about condition (2.b)--County Engineer
and VDH&T approval of alignment and vertical/horizontal
curvature of the future public road, to be shown on plat.
He stated he was not opposed to showing a proposed roadway that
would essentially be Dun Lora Road, but he thought that the
agreement between the parties, as suggested by Mr. Payne,
would take care of that issue. He stated he did not want to
have to design a public road at this time if it was not needed.
Mr. Cogan stated he would amend his previous motion for approval,
deleting condition (2.b). Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion
for deletion of condition (2.b).
The amended motion was unanimously approved.
Woodburn Court Preliminary Plat - Located on the east side of
Route 659 (SPCA Road) just north of its intersection with
Route 631 (Rio Road). Proposal to create 4 lots with an average
size of 40,000 square feet from a 5.029 acre site. Zoned R-6.
Tax Map 45, parcel 95A. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph stated the applicant was requesting indefinite deferral
of the item.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Woodburn Court Preliminary Plat
be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which
was unanimously approved.
Mawyer Final Plat - Located on a private road on the west side
of Rt. 743 near the Bedford Hill Subdivision. Proposal to
create two lots with an average size of 9.5 acres from a ±19
acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 45, parcel 49D1.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She added that preliminary
approval has been received from the Health Department.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He asked why it was necessary to have the
Bedford Hills maintenance agreement redone just to cut off
this one lot. He asked for clarification.
/Ifz//
July 9, 1985
Page 11
Mr. Payne explained that a document which establishes the
relative rights and obligations of the owners of these two
parcels, relative to each other and relative to the other
owners in Bedford Hills, needs to be put to record. He added
that if the current documents presuppose future subdivision,
then this should be a very simply matter.
Mr. Edwards indicated he was still confused. Mr. Payne
suggested that the attorney for Bedford Hills call him
directly.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Mawyer Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat can be signed when the following
conditions have been met:
a. County Attorney approval of road maintenance
agreement for proposed private road and amended
Bedford Hills roads maintenance agreement.
b. Planning staff approval of technical items.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
It was determined that Bridal Path Road is a private road, and
Parcel A2, which retains four development rights, cannot be
divided into less than 5 acres and still be served by a private
road.
Mr. Keeler went over the upcoming agenda for the July 16
meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
DS
09
Secretary
i
/-7
C