HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 10 1998 PC Minutes2-10-98
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 10, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Reiley. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; Mr.
David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Washington.
[NOTE: Because of equipment problems, there is no tape recording of this
meeting. These minutes are taken entirely from the Recording Secretary's notes.
The meeting was held in the Auditorium.]
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. The minutes
of January 27, 1998, were unanimously approved as submitted.
SP 97-66 CFW Wireless (Covesville) - Proposal to construct a telecommunication
facility on 56.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.6] Property, described as Tax Map
109, Parcel 9C, is located on the east side of Route 29, Monacan Trail Road,
approximately 0.45 miles south of Route 805, Henderson Lane, in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
(Mr. Fritz noted some minor changes in the proposed conditions of approval. Those
changes are reflected in the action on the request.) Staff also recommended approval
of a waiver of the drawing of a site plan (Sec. 32.2.2) subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Whittaker. Regarding the load bearing
capacity of the wooden poles, he said the manufacturer has assured the applicant that
the poles can handle additional antennas. He confirmed that the on -ground equipment
will be same as for the Bellair site approved the previous week. In response to Mr.
Rooker's question about fencing, he indicated a fence will not be needed.
Mr. Rieley asked if condition No. 6 will make the use comply with the current lighting
requirements of the Ordinance or with the proposed lighting ordinance. Mr. Fritz
replied that the lighting will comply with the proposed ordinance.
Public comment was invited. No comment was offered about this request, but Mr. Joe
Lieberman advised the Commission that the audience could not hear the Commission.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
1117
2-10-98
2
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 97-66 for CFW Wireless
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The tower height shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of
the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the
tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower.
Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in
diameter. [Note: Mr. Rieley requested that the 200 feet stated in the original condition
be changed to 50 feet (diameter). Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Tice agreed to that change
and accepted it as part of their motion. The 25 feet shown in this condition refers to
radius, which was acceptable to Mr. Rieley.]
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted.
b. The tower shall have no lighting.
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color.
3. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled
"Tower site for CFW Wireless CV-120" and initialed "WDF 1/29/98."
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) fiberglass antenna not to
exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter.
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of
other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions.
1. Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site
plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that
it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in
good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or
the site.
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable
evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location.
Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited
to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers
to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a
2-10-98 3
tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within
Albemarle County.
6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is
projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the
luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting
unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute
the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the
power supply.
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment
building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall
obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The
County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or
installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff,
the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the
tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access.
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued.
10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by
no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower
and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service
provider.
11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be
forty (40) feet.
12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed.
13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or
flatter.
14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section.
15. No fencing shall be erected.
OR
2-10-98
4
16. Any equipment located on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that a waiver of the drawing of
a site plan be granted for SP 97-66 (CFW Covesville) in accord with Section 32.2.2 of
the Ordinance, subject to the following conditions:
Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2. Provision for one parking space.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-19 CFW Wireless (Britts Mountainl - Proposal to construct a telecommunication
facility on 66 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.6]. Property, described as Tax Map
75, Parcels 22 and 23, is located on the east side of Route 29, Monacan Trail Road, on
Britt's Mountain, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated development area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
(Mr. Fritz noted the same minor changes in the proposed conditions of approval as
were made in the previous agenda item. Those changes are reflected in the action on
the request.) Staff also recommended approval of a waiver of the drawing of a site plan
(Sec. 32.2.2) subject to conditions, and approval of a modification of 4.10.3.1 to allow a
reduction in setback.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Whittaker. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Tice asked if these two towers will give complete coverage on Rt. 29 for the
applicant's PCS service. Mr. Whittaker said there will still be a gap between the two
towers. He estimated approximately 3 more sites will be needed to get from Covesville
to Britts Mountain. His company is currently searching for sites. He stressed the sites
are very "compact" and will have the same identical architecture and construction as
these two towers. Mr. Whittaker said his company is researching whether or not some
other type of material which would offer more co -location options, might be preferable
for future towers. Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant had any objection to a requirement
that the lighting be shielded so as not to be visible from Rt. 29. Mr. Whittaker had no
objection to such a requirement.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
En
2-10-98 5
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 97-19 for CFW
Wireless (Britts Mountain) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. The tower height shall not exceed the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet of
the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the
tallest tree. Antenna may extend 7 feet above the height of the tower.
Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in
diameter.
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted.
b. The tower shall have no lighting.
c. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color.
3. The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled
"Tower site for CFW Wireless " and initialed "WDF 1 /29/98."
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) fiberglass antenna not to
exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter.
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of
other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions.
1. Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site
plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that
it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in
good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or
the site.
2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable
evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location.
Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited
to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers
to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a
tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within
Albemarle County.
6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is
projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the
luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting
/,�3
2-10-98 6
unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute
the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the
power supply.
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment
building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall
obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The
County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or
installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff,
the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200 feet) of the
tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access.
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for wireless communications purposes is discontinued.
10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by
no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower
and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service
provider.
11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be
forty (40) feet.
12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed.
13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or
flatter.
14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section.
15. No fencing shall be erected.
16. Any equipment located on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown.
17. All lighting shall be shielded from Rt. 29.
The motion passed unanimously.
cm
2-10-98
7
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a waiver of the drawing of a
site plan be granted for SP 97-19 (CFW - Britts Mt.), in accord with Section 32.2.2,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2. Provision of one parking space.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a modification of Section
4.10.3.1 be granted for SP 97-19 (CFW - Britts Mt.) to allow a reduction in setback.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
ZMA 97-01 Still Meadows - Proposal to rezone approximately 142 acres from R-1,
Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development with a maximum of 150 lots.
Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 21 and Tax Map 45132, Parcel 2 (part of)
and 4 (part of) is located at the end of Northfields Road. Access is proposed to both
Northfields Road and Carrsbrook Drive. This site is in the Rio Magisterial District and is
recommended for Neighborhood density (3-6 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood
2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He called attention to additional materials in the
Commission's packets which were received after the completion of the staff report.
The report listed the following "major" revisions to the applicant's original plan:
--Reduction of the number of lots from 155 to 140. (Reduced later in the meeting
to 135 by the applicant.)
--Provision of proffers designed to offset the fiscal impact of the development.
--Provision of a buffer adjacent to existing development.
--Provision of proffers for water quality measures.
--Increased proffers for protection of critical slopes and existing wooded areas.
--Provision of parking spaces for use by the general public making use of the
access to the Rivanna Greenway.
--Provision of road improvements.
--Provision of a phasing plan.
--Provision of recreation fields in the open space.
cm
cm
2-10-98 8
Mr. Fritz called attention to a copy of the applicant's revised proffers (dated February 2,
1998). [Note: In response to concerns raised by the Commission and the public, the applicant
made further amendments to these proffers during the public hearing. Those changes are
described later in this record.]
The staff report identified 6 favorable factors of the request:
1 - The transportation system is adequate to accommodate the proposed
development.
2 - The design of the development is generally consistent with the design
standards of the Comp Plan.
3 - Provision has been made for the Rivanna Greenway and for the public
access to the Greenway.
4 - The proposal generally maintains the character of the area while providing
some increase in gross density over the existing zoning of the property.
5 - The applicant has provided proffers designed to offset the fiscal impact of the
development.
6 - The applicant has provided a buffer adjacent to existing residential
development.
The staff report identified 2 unfavorable factors:
1 - The density is below that which is recommended by the Comp Plan.
2 - The development adds additional traffic to the Huntington Road/Rio Road
intersection which currently has a failing level of service for certain turning
movements. ("However, the problems with this intersection are caused by
existing and/or prior approved development and staff opinion is that the need
for any improvements to this intersection is not substantially generated by this
project alone.")
It was staffs determination that "the development, on the whole, is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan."
Staff answered Commission questions about the proposal.
-- There was a discussion about the applicant's proffer related to the dedication
for the Greenway. Staff explained that the by -right development of the
property could result in 106 lots, but it is possible an additional 14 lots could
be achieved by the use of the bonus provisions of Section 13.4.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The bonus would be for dedication of the area for the
Greenway, but the Board would have to accept the dedication of land in order
for the 14 additional lots to be achieved. [Note: How the bonus provisions might
be used by the applicant to achieve a higher density with a by -right development
was a major issue in the Commission's discussion, and is addressed several times
in these minutes.]
/.26
2-10-98
0
-- Mr. Rooker asked if any of the items proffered by the applicant are things
which he would be required to do in a by -right development. Mr. Fritz said
the following things would be required in a by -right development: Certain road
improvements; Underground utility lines; and 2 parking spaces per unit (but
not necessarily in a garage as the applicant has proffered). Pedestrian paths
(as proffered by the applicant) would not be required at the density that is
proposed.
-- Mr. Tice asked staff about various potential bonus provisions, e.g. if a
subdivision plan is proposed which preserves 20% of the existing wooded
area, on the site, a 10% bonus could be granted; if trees are not needlessly
removed and landscaping is significant, a 5 % bonus couldbe granted; for a
dedication of land, if approved by the Board, a bonus of up to 15% could be
granted. Mr. Tice concluded that in any case, the maximum number of bonus
rights achievable could not exceed 50% of the base by -right density.
-- Referring to proffer No. 6 related to Buffer Area, Mr. Tice asked how this
could be enforced when the property is owned by 15 or 20 different lot
owners. Mr. Kamptner said the buffer will have to be clearly identified on the
plat and because it is proffered, the County has the authority to enforce it.
Mr. Kamptner added tht the zoning department informed him that
enforcement would be on a complaint basis, i.e. if neighbors notice that trees
are being removed, they would notify the County. Later in the meeting Mr.
Finley asked how the County can restrict a private homeowner from cutting a
tree on his property. Staff said there could be a restriction in the
Homeowners' documents which would require that the cutting of a tree of a
certain height and diameter would require the approval of the Association.
Mr. Tice asked if it is reasonable to expect a Homeowners' Association to
manage 50 acres of open space. Mr. Fritz said there are developments
(Glenmore, Forest Lakes) where very large areas of open space are
maintained by Homeowners' Associations and the County has had no
problems with these.
-- Mr. Rooker asked if a buffer could be required if this were a by -right
development. Staff said there is no buffering requirement between like uses.
-- Mr. Rooker asked if the possibility of creating a common area has been
considered and how might a common area effect minimum lot size. Staff
replied that because this is a proposal for a PRD, the minimum lot size is
whatever the smallest lot is on the property at the time the PRD is created.
-- Mr. Tice asked staff to explain the role the County Engineering Department
will play in the design, installation and long-term maintenance of the
stormwater detention facilities. Mr. Kelsey addressed this question. He said
his department, including the Water Resources Manager, will work closely
with the applicant's engineers to arrive at a final design for stormwater
provisions. Though the proffers do not address maintenance, it will be
covered in the site plan review because all stormwater facilities require a
2-10-98
10
maintenance agreement which must be recorded. He said if a stormwater
management facility is proffered, and the County accepts the proffer, then the
County Engineering has the authority to oversee the design, installation and
maintenance of the structure.
-- Mr. Tice noted that the applicant is proffering stormwater detention facilities,
but is also requesting relief of stormwater requirements. Mr. Kelsey
explained that a lot of the site drains directly to the river. The applicant has
proffered to construct a wetland area which will improve water quality
because it will slow water down, thereby allowing time for sediment to settle
out. Mr. Hirschman pointed out the location of the proposed wetland on the
plan. Mr. Tice asked about regional benefits. Mr. Hirschman explained that
as technology keeps improving, staff is looking at opportunities to retrofit
stream buffers. He said the applicant has agreed to plant trees as a buffer
along the river and along the tributary, and he will be encouraged to increase
the forest buffer along the river to a full 100 feet.
-- Mr. Rooker asked staff to explain the items mentioned in proffer 4(f). Mr.
Hirschman said they are devices intended to catch a certain amount of runoff
and either filter it or let it soak into the ground. A level spreader turns
concentrated flow into sheet flow. A bio-retention area is an area of soil and
vegetation designed to trap runoff.
-- Mr. Tice asked if the Engineering staff has looked at the actual designs of the
Water Quality Improvement Plan (proffer 4) to ensure that none of them will
pose a safety hazard. Mr. Kelsey said he was certain safety would be a
consideration when these items are reviewed.
-- Mr. Tice asked if all the water quality measures proposed will generally
comply with the proposed Water Resources Ordinance which the
Commission just passed on to the Board. Mr. Hirschman said he believes
what is proposed will comply. He said the site has a lot of runoff going in
different directions and he believes what is proposed will meet the standards
of the ordinance. Mr. Rooker asked if anything significant had been
requested of the applicant in terms of water quality which are not addressed
by the proffers. Staff indicated the proffers addressed all significant
concerns.
-- Mr. Finley asked if there are design criteria for water quality. Mr. Hirschman
said there are design guidelines for retention, and water quality guidelines
have been developed in the past several years. Referring to proffer 4(b)--
"... water quality basins to filter storm water that is not required to be
detained...." --Mr. Finley asked how that is possible. Mr. Hirschman said a
basin designed to detain the "first flush of runoff' is much different than a
flood control facility which would have to retain a 10-year storm. The function
is very different. It is the first flush which is the most contaminated.
-- Mr. Rieley asked what percentage of the site will have no requirement for
treatment of runoff. Mr. Hirschman said treatment will be provided
J-7 Y
2-10-98 11
everywhere runoff is concentrated. There are areas of steep slopes where there
will be runoff from yards, but it is not expected to be concentrated runoff.
--Mr. Tice asked Mr. Kelsey and Mr. Hirschman if the applicant's proffer
gives the Engineering Department approval of the facilities covered in proffer no 4,
related to water quality measures. Mr. Kelsey replied affirmatively. Mr. Kamptner
stressed that proffers cannot be used to avoid any requirements of the county's
ordinances.
--Mr. Tice asked if staff knew what the "break even point" --in terms of fiscal
impact-- is for this development, i.e. at what assessed value of a house do the
revenues equal the cost? Staff could not answer this question. Mr. Rooker said
this type of information is based upon averages but the numbers in our area are
skewed because of the high number of UVA students and retirees.
--Mr. Tice asked if staff had been able to revise some of the information
(schools, traffic counts) provided in the charts in the staff report to reflect the
change from 150 units to 140. Mr. Fritz said the school figures were revised, but
the traffic figures were not. Mr. Tice asked if there will be higher traffic loading in
this area in the next 20 years as there is further buildout of this area. Mr. Fritz did
not believe the change would be significant because there are no significant
undeveloped areas remaining. There is also the limitation to development caused
by the floodplain. He said this property is the largest single undeveloped land in
this area.
--There was a discussion of the way the traffic counts were taken and why
the counts differ in some of the information. Staff explained some figures were
taken for only one day, but others were for longer periods of time. Also, the
locations of the counts varied. Staff had not had time to change the figures based
on the change in the proposal to 140 units. Mr. Tice asked if it was more
complicated than just calculating 93% of the figures. Mr. Fritz said it probably is
not any more complicated than that.
--Mr. Finley asked how many developers offer cash proffers, given the fact
that they cannot be required. Mr. Fritz confirmed they cannot be required, and
they can only be offered through the rezoning process. He cited the Glenmore
Development as one which had offered cash proffers. Mr. Finley pointed out that
the acreage which the applicant has proffered to dedicate for the Greenway has a
significant value, in addition to the cash proffers. He said the purchasers of the
homes will end up paying for these donations. Mr. Fritz said the this is a process
which is continually debated.
--At Mr. Tice's request, Mr. Fritz read new school enrollment figures,
including 1997 actual and projected counts, and counts projected by the year
2001. He said the figures do factor in a growth factor for the entire area, but do
not factor in this specific development. All the figures indicate the three schools --
Om
on
2-10-98
12
Woodbrook, Sutherland, and Albemarle High School, will be under capacity in
the year 2001.
-- Mr. Tice said the applicant has not proffered anything about lighting of the
recreational areas, or any of the lots. He assumed the proposed lighting
ordinance, when passed by the Board, will apply only to lighting installed after
the date it is passed.
-- At Mr. Tice's request, Mr. Fritz reviewed the densities and the average lot
sizes of surrounding neighborhoods. (All this information is contained in the
staff report and its attachments.)
-- Mr. Tice said the applicant has proffered pedestrian paths along the major
roads. He asked if these could be required if the property is developed by -
right. Mr. Fritz said they could not be required unless the density is at least 2
units/acre. Mr. Tice asked if they could be required if the density on a portion
of the property is 2 units/acre. Mr. Kamptner said the requirement would be
based on the density on the entire property.
-- Mr. Tice asked about the time schedule for this application, i.e. how long
does the County have to take action? Staff explained the Commission has
90 days from the date of the application to make a recommendation to the
Board. The Board has one year from the date of the application to take
action. That one year has lapsed but because the applicant requested that
the proposal come back to the Commission, the time schedule was re -set.
Applicant comment was invited.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jay Wienberg. He described the request and
how the current plan differs from the previous plan. He said the plan complies with the
Comp Plan and meets the County's desire for in -fill development in order to prevent
urban sprawl. He stressed that 106 lots can be built by right and if the dedication of the
greenway is accepted, an additional 14 lots could be added to that. If a by -right plan
were to be granted with all the bonuses applicable, 140 lots may be achievable, by -
right. He said the question to be answered by the County is whether or not the benefits
to be received by the County with this PRD outweigh any benefits of a by -right R1
development, without proffers. He said the proffers will ensure a higher quality
development. Mr. Wienberg summarized the applicant's proffers and offered some
changes to address issues raised in the Commission's discussion. The changes were
as follows: [NOTE: Later in the meeting, Mr. Kamptner confirmed that final wording for
proffers must be in writing before the item is presented to the Board of Supervisors.]
-- No. 4 (Water Quality Concept Plan) - Add: Water quality protection
measures, including maintenance, shall be subject to the review and approval
of the County Engineer.
-- No. 6 (Buffer Area) - The buffer area will be protected in the covenants and
must be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Adjoining lots, outside
/ 3 0
M
2-10-98 13
the subdivision, will have rights as third party beneficiaries, to require
enforcement of the homeowners' responsibilities.
-- Lighting (for Recreation Areas and Playing Fields) Nos. 12 and 17 - Lighting
shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at property boundary lines and shall be
no taller than 20 feet.
-- Add a Proffer: Berms: - An undulating, landscaped, earthen berm between
three (3) feet and six (6) feet in height shall be developed along the rear of
Lots 128 through 135, inclusive, and Lots 145 through 154, inclusive, to
provide privacy and screening for the residents of such lots. [NOTE. This
proffer will be numbered as No. 20., with the original No. 20 becoming No. 21.]
[NOTE: Later in the hearing, the applicant offered to amend the proffers further in response to
Commission comments. Those changes were:
-- No.4 - Pathways to be 4 feet wide. (deleted 3 feet) Pathways will be made of
asphalt. Pathways will be on one side of the road.
-- No. 6 - Add wording that "additional plants shall be required to replace those which
must be removed for the installation of the sanitary sewer. "
-- No. 18 - A maximum of 135 lots shall be developed.
-- Add a proffer saying that the lots which abut Northfields lots will have the same
width dimensions as the Northfields lots.]
Additional comments by Mr. Weinberg included:
-- Though this plan does not totally implement the in -fill policy, it is moving in
that direction and he urged the Commission to approve the PRD, rather than
abandon the in -fill policy.
-- The PRD is only a slight increase in the by -right development and is
consistent with the design standards of the Comp Plan.
-- The plan provides for the Greenway and for public access, and it maintains
the natural beauty and character of the area. The proffers are designed to
offset the physical impact of the development.
-- The existing infrastructure has been determined to be able to accommodate
development without reducing the level of service.
-- The Engineering comments were based on 150 units. So if 150 units were
acceptable, there should be no engineering concerns about 140 lots.
-- The traffic studies considered all intersections for potential development of
106, 120 and 140 lots. An increase of 34 homes will increase congestion at
any one of the intersections at peak hours by 3 - 12 seconds. The change
will be unnoticeable. Traffic numbers will be less because of on -site
recreational facilities.
-- The plan has been found by county staff to be consistent with design
guidelines for residential development.
-- The plan is a step towards implementing the in -fill policy and a blow against
urban sprawl.
131
2-10-98 14
-- The proffers offer on -site recreational facilities, a state-of-the-art water quality
plan, a dedication of land along the river, buffers between surrounding
neighborhoods, pedestrian paths, restrictions on clearing of trees for home
sites and protects trees in the buffer, off -site traffic improvements, a
$100,000 contribution to the CIP, a contribution to a traffic light, and a phased
plan of development to ensure managed growth.
Mr. Weinberg did not favor designating the buffer area as Open Space because he said
this could result in people trespassing though back yards. He said he would prefer not
to make that change unless the County requires it.
After the applicant's presentation, the Commission asked the following questions:
-- Mr. Finley asked if the development will have underground utilities? Mr. Fritz
said it is required that utilities be underground.
-- In response to Mr. Tice's request, Mr. Weinberg pointed out the location of
the proffered berm ("between the homes that back up to each other").
-- Mr. Loewenstein asked how many lots would be lost if they were all located
outside of critical slope areas. Mr. Scott Williams (representing the applicant)
said no lots would be lost, though the square footage of some lots might be
less. He pointed out that the proffer related to critical slopes will protect them
beyond what the ordinance requires. Mr. Williams was uncertain of the
percentage of the building area which is in critical slopes, but said all areas
on critical slopes on the open space plan are protected.
-- Mr. Rooker asked for a clarification of Proffer No. 6. He said it sounds as
though it says existing vegetation can be removed from the buffer area.
[..."Existing vegetation may, and fallen, deceased or dead plant growth shall,
be removed from the buffer area...."] Mr. Weinberg said that existing
vegetation will be removed only if necessary for the installation of the sanitary
sewer, and trees which are removed must be replaced. He offered to add
wording that "additional plants shall be required to replace those which must
be removed for the installation of the sanitary sewer."
-- Mr. Tice asked Mr. Weinberg to show on the plan where the lots had been
removed to reflect the reduction from 150 to 140 units. Mr. Weinberg said the
lot layout on display is still 150, but 10 will be taken out and those that back
up to the adjoining subdivision will be widened so that their lot dimensions are
comparable to the lots they abut. He said if a nice house site cannot be
located on a lot then it will be added to other lots or will become open space.
He pointed out that lot 112 is a "flag" lot and may be eliminated and lots 109
and 110 combined into one large lot. He said the intent is to make lots larger
when possible, rather than to compress lot sizes. He confirmed that the
intent in going from 150 to 140 lots is to make the lots which back up to
Westmoreland and Northfields even more compatible than what is shown on
the 150 lot plan. He agreed to incorporate this into the proffer.
13A
2-10-98
15
,%WW --Referring to Proffer No. 4, Mr. Rieley expressed the feeling that 3 feet is
too narrow for a pedestrian pathway. The applicant offered to amend the proffer
to say the pathways will be 4 feet. The applicant said the pathways will be
asphalt.
Prior to the beginning of public comment, Mr. Fritz corrected some of the school
figures he had given earlier.
Public comment was invited.
The following persons, almost all of whom are residents of the Northfields,
Carrsbrook, Westmoreland and Woodbrook neighborhoods, addressed the
Commission and expressed their opposition to the proposal: Charley Trachta
(President of Woodbrook Homeowners' Association); Donald Lyons (President of
the Raintree Homeowners' Association); Frank Rice (representing the Carrsbrook
Homeowners' Association - See Attachment A); Wayne Elliott (representing the
Northfields Homeowners' Association); Jinny Grayson (a county resident); Thomas
McQueen; Heinz Porsche; Chris Devan; Bob Moranto (see Attachment B); Joe
Mason; Linda Franklin; John Lloyd; Henry Harmon; Karen Brown; Douglas
Hudson; Abby Bishop; and Bob Parrott (Fieldbrook). Their reasons for opposition
were as follows: [NOTE: Not all speakers supported all the reasons for opposition.]
--This plan is only slightly different than the plan previously submitted.
--The proffers offered are not enough to change the minds of the neighbors.
--Many speakers expressed concerns about impact to the schools. They
said, in various ways, the County is already having difficultly with its Education
budget. The schools have not been able to keep up with the growth. [NOTE:
Several speakers questioned the school enrollment figures quoted by staff. They
did not believe the figures were accurate.] The county cannot continue to
overcrowd the schools. "Citizens are being punished by a lack of fiscal
responsibility on the part of the County."
--Growth does not pay for itself. There is a gross imbalance between
revenues earned from growth and the cost of providing the infrastructure and
schools for that
growth.
--Increased traffic on already highly congested, dangerous roads. The
streets of the neighborhoods which this development will dump into are no longer
safe for children, walkers, bikers, or pets. They are curvy, with many blind spots.
--The applicant has adequate use of the land as currently zoned. (Several
of those who spoke said that though they would prefer that the property not be
developed at all, they would prefer by -right development to this proposed plan. }
--It is up to the elected and appointed county officials to protect the integrity
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Citizens have made
investments in homes, for many the most valuable financial asset in their
OR
r[B.
lives, based on faith in our government officials. To allow this zoning change
would be a "breach of faith" and will diminish the quality of life of the residents
of these neighborhoods.
-- The in -fill policy is only one aspect of the Comp Plan; it was never intended to
be the major factor in altering county policy. The Comp Plan is for the
protection of the citizens of the County and for the preservation of the natural
environment.
-- A section of the Land Use Plan (page 51) recommends less density (not
more).
-- Action should be delayed on this request until there is a clear understanding
of what the applicant could actually achieve by -right, with bonus provisions.
-- How can the Board and Commission oversee the orderly development of the
county and not rely on the zoning map?
-- The zoning should not be changed "without good cause" and this plan is not
good cause.
-- Staff reports should be able to provide more accurate data.
-- Potential problems with enforcement of the buffer areas.
-- The few benefits of this development do not make up for the many adverse
factors.
-- The applicant's proffers are a "threat", i.e. they are saying if you don't
approve our rezoning, you won't get these things.
-- Concerns about potential drainage problems. Homeowners cannot cope with
serious drainage problems.
-- The applicant should consider building a development for senior citizens.
They will contribute to the community, but will not overload schools.
-- This proposal will benefit only a greedy developer.
The applicant was allowed a final statement. His responses to some of the public
comments were as follows:
-- Do you want to put children in existing schools that have the capacity to
accommodate them, or force them into the rural areas where new schools will
have to be built?
-- If this rezoning is not approved, will 20 people not move to Albemarle
County?
-- The County cannot sustain quality commercial and industrial development if it
does not have residential development.
-- The Planning Commission has an obligation to implement the Comp Plan and
a duty, as society changes, to make changes to the Plan. If changes are
never to be made, the County could adopt a Land Use Plan and there would
be no need for a Planning Commission.
-- There are no vested rights in zoning.
-- This plan is better than R1 development because the proffers give
recreational facilities, greenway dedication, a water quality plan, pedestrian
Im
2-10-98 17
pathways, off -site road improvements, protection of existing trees, a
contribution to a traffic signal, a $100,000 contribution to the CIP, and a
phasing plan which ensures orderly growth.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice asked questions about the enforceability of the buffer. Mr. Fritz said the proffer
incorporates properties which are not a part of this development. If the buffer is
disturbed, the county has enforcement authority if the proffer is violated, as it does with
the violation of any proffer. Mr. Tice wondered if there is any better way to ensure the
enforceability. Mr. Fritz said the possibility of making the buffer a part of the open
space had been mentioned, but he questioned whether that would be a better option.
Mr. Nitchmann said he did not have many comments about buffers or water quality
because he trusts the County's engineers and the Water Resources Manager to see
that these items will be done properly. He said he does have concerns about safety
and he is not sure they have been satisfied with this proposal. He was concerned, as
were other Commissioners, about the lack of definitive information on the potential by -
right development which could be achieved (with bonuses). He said the schools will still
be under capacity even with this development, as will the road capabilities. He said if he
were certain 140 lots could be achieved by -right, then he could support the proposed
plan. He said he was prepared to vote, but he would really prefer to have more
information.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that the numbers which have been provided by staff do not
match up with the information that has been provided by the public. He said he has
driven on these roads for many years and the traffic situation is already very difficult. He
said he appreciates the work the applicant has done on this proposal and it does
represent in -fill development, but he did not want to be "held hostage" by the proffers.
He said he is particularly concerned about traffic issues and safety and feels there is
more information that could be provided. He said he was not prepared to support the
proposal at this time.
Mr. Finley pointed out that the applicant had offered to cooperate with the DISC
committee on this plan, but the neighbors had opposed that idea. That would have
given the neighborhoods the opportunity to become involved in the planning for this
property. He said staff did an excellent job in its analysis of this proposal and they
determined that it satisfies the requirements and the Comp Plan guidelines. When the
Comp Plan recommends increased density a rezoning must take place to allow that
increased density. He asked how developers will know what is expected to them if they
follow the guidelines in good faith and then are turned down.
/9-6
2-10-98 18
Mr. Tice said he believes the answer to the question about the number of lots which
could be achieved by -right, with bonuses, is critical to the Commission's decision. He
said the Commission had denied this proposal previously for defensible and justifiable
reasons. He disagreed that the changes in this plan are only cosmetic ones. He said
there have been significant changes in terms of what has been offered in the proffers.
He felt it was very important, however, to know "whether we are talking about a 140 lot
plan with proffers or a 106 lot by -right development (or 120 or 130 or possibly 140)."
Based on the staffs comments about bonus possibilities, he guessed the applicant
could potentially achieve at least 130 lots. He asked if the item were to be deferred
would staff be better able to answer the question about potential by -right development
with bonuses. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would have to have a plan "on paper" in order to
be able to evaluate it for bonus provisions. Without such a by -right plan to review they
would only be "speculating" on what bonuses might be achieved. He explained that
some bonuses are mandated for certain features, and others have some discretion. He
concluded: "We could break it down for you as to the absolute highest number of units
they could get and tell you which are mandated and which are discretional, and give
you a total after that is figured out, but we have almost done that already. That is about
all we can do." Mr. Tice, after hearing Mr. Cilimberg's comments, concluded that a
delay would be of little help in answering the question about definitive number of by -
right lots because staff would not be able to determine those numbers with certainty
without the submittal of a plan.
There was a discussion of the types of features which result in bonuses, e.g.
preservation of wooded area, dedication of land, internal roads, "significant"
landscaping, off -site road improvements. Based on the discussion, Mr. Rooker
estimated the number of lots achievable could be 120-135. He said he would rather be
considering a development with the proffers which have been offered, than a by -right
development with potentially almost the same number of lots and no proffers. He said
there are many things in these proffers which will benefit the adjoining neighborhoods.
Mr. Rieley said a fundamental aspect of this proposal is one of the pieces in the
development areas which the county has to grapple with. Land in development areas is
a very precious commodity and "we have an obligation to strive for the maximum use of
the land." He pointed out that this property has utilities, and if we don't address these
areas efficiently we will put additional pressure for expansion on the rural areas. He
said he found a lot of the public's criticisms of the plan to be valid, and one suggestion
he had found to be interesting was that of creating a development for retirees, who
would contribute to the community but cause no impact to schools. He said he
believes there are severe limitations on the degree to which "you can load up this site."
His main concern was the road system and the fact that the development will be
accessed through two existing subdivisions. But the final question is whether or not this
plan, with its proffers, is better than we are likely to get by right. He concluded: "I am
inclined to think it is."
43 <o
cm
2-10-98 19
Mr. Rooker asked if there were any accident statistics on the roads. Mr. Fritz said
Police Department records indicate for the period January, 1992 through
December, 1996, there were 2 accidents on Northfields Road. On Carrsbrook
Drive, for the same period, there were 16 accidents, which is greater than
average. There were 10 injuries as a result of these accidents.
Noting that access is a major concern of many of the residents, a member of the
public asked if any other access is possible. Mr. Loewenstein said the
Commission can review only what has been presented.
At Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Kamptner reviewed what he understood to be the
additional changes made in the proffers during the meeting's discussion. Those
changes are:
--No. 4 (Water Quality Concept Plan) - Water quality protection measures,
including maintenance, shall be subject to the review and approval of the County
Engineer.
--No. 6 (Buffer Area) - The buffer area will be protected in the covenants
and must be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Adjoining lots, outside
the subdivision, will have rights as third party beneficiaries, to require enforcement
of the homeowners' responsibilities.
--Lighting (for Recreation Areas and Playing Fields) - Lighting shall be no
brighter than 1/2 foot candle at property boundary lines and no higher than 20
feet.
--Add a Proffer: Berms: - An undulating, landscaped, earthen berm
between three (3) feet and six (6) feet in height shall be developed along the rear
of Lots 128 through 135, inclusive, and Lots 145 through 154, inclusive, to provide
privacy and screening for the residents of such lots.
--No.4 - Pathways to be 4 feet wide. (deleted 3 feet) Pathways will be
made of asphalt, and will be on one side of the road.
--Add a proffer saying that the lots which abut Northfields lots will have the
same width dimensions as the Northfields lots.
--No. 6 - Add wording that "additional plants shall be required to replace
those which must be removed for the installation of the sanitary sewer."
Noting that the public's biggest concern seems to be with road safety, which is
related to density, Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would be willing to consider
reducing the number of lots to 135 (which is closer to what may be achievable by -
right with bonus provisions). Mr. Weinberg asked for time to confer with his client.
After conferring with the applicant, Mr. Weinberg agreed to reduce the number of
lots to 135. Proffer No. 18 would be amended accordingly.
Mr. Tice said he did not think anything would be gained by a deferral because staff has
explained that they could not provide a definitive by -right number of lots achievable
/,37
2-10-98 20
without the submission of a by -right plan. He said he feels there are a number of
design features which could be improved upon, but if the potential by -right
development is 130 or 140, and the proposal has now been reduced to 135, then
if this were to be denied, we would be saying the difference in the PRD and what
can be done by -right is a violation of the Corn Plan, the Ordinance, and a threat to
public health and safety, and "I don't think we can make that determination." He
said he hoped, if more information becomes available in terms of pinning down
that by -right figure, it will be presented to the Board.
Mr. Finley asked if the reduction to 135 lots was supported by other
Commissioners. Mr. Rooker said if the biggest objection is to the number of lots
and the increased traffic --if the density is closer to what could be achieved by -
right, he could support the request with the revised proffers.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 97-01 for Still
Meadows, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to
acceptance of the applicants amended proffers, including the additional
amendments made at this meeting.
Discussion:
Mr. Loewenstein said: "Numbers are numbers and bad design is still bad design.
`*,we I would prefer that the DISC committee get involved. We would have seen a
much more creative and better use of this land --a better plan than what is before
us. " He commended the applicant for working diligently with staff and for the
proffers. "But there is still a message the community has sent to us and we need
to send a message back to the citizens and developers that what we are about is
better and more creative ways to properly distribute growth. I still have questions
about safety."
Mr. Rieley noted that VDOT has a Safety Fund available for projects each year.
He suggested the problems described by the public --vertical curves, etc --might be
eligible for some of these funds. Mr. Rooker suggested looking into the possibility
of whether or not spot improvements are needed from a safety standpoint.
The motion for approval passed (5.1) with Commissioner Loewenstein casting the
dissenting vote.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a modification of
Section 4.2, to allow activity on critical slopes located on lots 58, 59, 60, 68, 69,
70, 79, 118, 119, 120 and 144, be granted for ZMA 97-01. Where slopes are to
be constructed they shall be at a maximum slope of 3:1.
The motion passed unanimously.
169
2-10-98
21
*"'` MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a modification of Section
5.1.16 to allow the recreation area to be located as shown on the application plan,
be approved for ZMA 97-01.
Cm
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a waiver of the
stormwater detention requirements for those portions of the property which drain
directly to the Rivanna River, be approved, subject to the approval of the
Engineering Department.
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
13 I