HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 10 1998 PC Minutes3-10-98
' MARCH 10, 1998
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March
10, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; and Mr.
Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms.
MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Rooker.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. The
minutes of February 10th and 17th were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Keeler summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their March 4th
meeting.
WORK SESSION - Biodiversity Section of the Comprehensive Plan - Review and
acceptance of final draft for the Natural Environment Section of the Comp Plan.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She pointed out changes made to the section
since the last work session and how staffs strategy changed since the last version.
Mr. Tice understood the change in strategy to be that the inventory should be
completed first and then an action plan prepared for the Commission's and Board's
review before a decision is made as to how to proceed. Ms. Scala said the main
reason for the change in strategy is because "it is difficult to say, until we've seen the
full extent of the resources, exactly what the best way to protect them would be." She
said: "At the very least we would emphasize educating the public about the biological
resources, stressing voluntary measures. I think we can all agree on those two items,
and beyond that we will just have to wait until the inventory is completed. If you want
an idea of how I think it will be implemented, you could look to the Open Space Plan,
which we currently use."
Commission comments and suggested changes were as follows:
--Pg. 8, last bullet under the first paragraph related to a new staff position - Mr.
Tice asked: "I assume that doesn't necessarily mean we are going to have a staff
position in conservation biology, but rather that the idea is as county staff are hired
one of the things we would look for in qualifications would be one who would have
some degree of expertise in conservation biology. " He suggested adding a phrase
such as: "and/or training of existing county staff in the principles of conservation
biology," so the action plan would look at the possibility of hiring not only one county
staff person that has some qualifications in that field," but also providing training for
existing staff. Ms. Scala agreed that approach would work. Referring to this same
bullet, Mr. Loewenstein said the present language does not make it clear whether
197
3-10-98 2
the need to hire a county staff member is something that is definitely mandated or is
just a discussion topic. He felt this should be more clearly stated so that it is clear
that "we have not established, officially, this need, but it is going to be one of the
topics covered in discussion." Phrases such as "whether there is a need," "potential
need," or "consider the need," were suggested. Ms. Scala said that had been staffs
original intent. Mr. Rieley said another way to address this might be to change the
last sentence of the first paragraph to say "Actions to be either discussed or
covered...."
--Pg. 7, Objective at the bottom of the page - Mr. Finley asked what is meant
by the term "maintain." Ms. Scala said the term was intended to mean "preserve."
Mr. Rieley asked if the term "conserve" might be better. Mr. Finley suggested either
"promote" or "conserve."
--Page 7, Strategy at the bottom of the page - Mr. Finley asked why there is no
recommendation to get the community involved in the development of the action plan.
Ms. Scala said it is intended there will be a selection of community members to serve
on the biodiversity committee. Also, the development of any plan is always open to
public input through work sessions. That is certainly the intent. Mr. Tice suggested
adding: ...with assistance from the biodiversity committee, and through a public
participation process,...." Mr. Finley said Mr. Tice's suggested addition would help
address his concern.
--Pg. 6, 2nd paragraph from bottom - Mr. Loewenstein suggested adding at the
end of the paragraph a statement that the County does have a GIS system in place.
--Mr. Finley said everything seems to be oriented to the Rural Areas, but there
are hundreds of urban lots which could do a lot for eco-systems and habitat by
reducing the use of strong fertilizers and planting more vegetation. Ms. Scala said the
plan does seem to refer primarily to Rural Areas. She thought Mr. Finley's point was
a good one. To address Mr. Finley's concern, Mr. Tice suggested an addition to the
strategy on page 5, "...and private landowners, including residents of the urban growth
area, on the value...." Ms. Scala suggested a change to the Objective on page 5.
"Recognize the importance of protecting biological diversity in the rural and urban
areas for the ecological,...." On this same topic, Mr. Loewenstein suggested adding to
the last paragraph on page 2 something about emerging growth patterns and the
need to apply these principles and guidelines to all types of levels of development.
Mr. Tice suggested a better place to include Mr. Loewenstein's suggestion would be in
the first paragraph on page 3, after the sentence ending ...to more intensive uses.
He suggested adding: "In addition, the use and management of properties within the
growth area has similar impacts on the habitat of biological resources within the
county," or something similar.
--Pg. 6 , bullets at top of page - Mr. Tice suggested that the bullet "Minimize the
use of pesticides" should be reinstated (not deleted as suggested by staff) and the
word "fertilizers" should be added.
--Pg. 3, 2nd paragraph - Mr. Tice suggested changes to the second sentence,
i.e. ""Various native species have been lost, or diminished, (such as the American
on
Elm
3-10-98 3
Chestnut)... and some exotics have been introduced (such as the Ailanthus), the latter
often becoming unwelcomed pests."
--Pg. 3, last sentence in the 3rd paragraph - Mr. Tice suggested staff check the
correct name of the James River Spiny mussel. He thinks the name is the James
Spiny mussel.
--Pg. 6, bullets at the top of the page - Mr. Finley suggested a bullet should be
added related to the protection of fence rows. He said these provide good habitat, yet
landowners have a tendency to keep these trimmed and manicured.
--Pg. 1, first sentence in the Genetic Diversity paragraph - Mr. Loewenstein said
the word "between" should be changed to "among."
--Pg. 2, paragraph (3), beginning "Humanity has..." - Mr. Finley thought the
language was too "soft." Mr. Rieley suggested words such as "it is a widely held
belief." Staff agreed the language should be stronger.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Olivier, President of Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. His
statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. He supported the staff
report, but felt the proposed plan was "too measured in some recommendations." (See
Attachment A.)
Professor Mellon, Chair of the Citizens for Albemarle Biodiversity Committee,
addressed the Commission. He called the Commission's attention to a report in the
scientific journal, Nature, (copies of which Mr. Olivier distributed to the Commission).
The article stresses the importance of biodiversity to economics and the necessity of
developing computer -based databases in conducting surveys. The report emphasizes
the relationship between biodiversity, conservation, a healthy environment and a
strong economy, and calls for federal funding, next year, of a minimum of $40,000,000
to develop a next generation national biological information infrastructure in which
information about species can be stored and accessed." The article is attached to
these minutes as Attachment B. He commended the County for considering a course
of action which parallels the national government and the ideas of the best scientists
in the environmental area.
Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, addressed
the Commission. He felt strongly that regional cooperation is a very important
component of a biodiversity study. He said the BRHA looks forward to serving on the
biodiversity committee. He said the "action plan" needs to be more clearly defined,
i.e. "Will it be a separate program and a separate ordinance; will it be a zoning
overlay?" Mr. Loewenstein said the action plan will depend on a number of things,
including the biological inventory. Ms. Scala said staff views this as a "report",
developed following the inventory, which will talk about how the inventory should be
incorporated into the planning process. It will possibly be adopted as a part of the
/Y�
OR
3-10-98 4
Comprehensive Plan, "to make it official, and it will serve as a guide." She said she
does not envision this as an ordinance or an overlay.
Mr. Rieley suggested a statement should be added about regional cooperation, if it is
not already included. He said this is a concern which does not stop at county
boundaries.
The Commission discussed the next step in the process. It was the consensus of the
Commission that another work session was not needed. Staff was directed to make
the changes suggested and bring them back with the entire final draft of Section 2.
WORK SESSION -.Residential Density Bonus Provisions
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and led a discussion on the bonus provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing the Commission with information
about the provisions.
Commission comments and questions included the following:
--Mr. Loewenstein asked if staff has an idea of what percentage of time, where
the provisions have been potentially applicable, have they been used. ANSWER:
They were used in Raintree (lot size, density), Village Square and Dunlora (lot size).
Most of the larger developments have been Planned Developments, where bonuses
are not applicable.
-- Mr. Tice asked the County's Housing Chief, Ms. Ginny McDonald, to
comment on why the provisions for affordable housing have never been used.
Ms. McDonald addressed the Commission. She distributed a Summary Report on the
work of the Housing Committee to date. Regarding the bonus density for affordable
housing, she offered the following comments:
--The County's Ordinance is voluntary. She explained that she worked
previously with Montgomery County, Maryland, which has a mandatory ordinance, i.e.
"if you were going to build more than 50 units, you just built affordable housing --it
became business as usual." The Housing Committee believes "if we cannot come up
with something as an alternative, through the work of the DIS Committee and through
the goodwill of the development community, then we might come back to you and the
Board at a later time asking for something of a mandatory nature." With all the
development that has occurred since the mid-1980's many opportunities have been
lost and we have not achieved affordable housing.
--There are no household income limit qualifications for the potential purchasers
or renters. "Consequently, should any affordable units be produced, they would be
available to anyone of any income range.... Without that, it defeats the purpose of the
ordinance."
�o
3-10-98 5
%Wle --Only the rental units are restricted as to affordable rent levels for five years.
She believed the intention was "that the rental and for sale units be restricted for five
years, but only the rental units are."
--There is currently a $30,000 difference between the sales price of a VHDA
purchase price financing limitation and the former Farmer's Home loan limit. "There is
a distinction within the ordinance which says either the VHDA limit or the Farmer's
Home limit. But when you talk to those organizations, one has a sales limit and one
has a loan limit. So although the loan limit may be $142,000, the house could be
$200,000. Again, you are defeating the purpose. The Ordinance is also silent as to
who chooses the limit --the developer or the county?"
--"The Committee believes the State Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance is
mandatory. (She deferred to Mr. Kamptner as to the County's position.) But whether
we adopt the State ordinance or not, given the local ordinance maximum being higher,
30% of zero is still zero. We haven't produced affordable units." [On the question of
the State's Ordinance, Mr. Kamptner said: "We are still waiting for the Attorney
General to render an opinion on the question of mandatory or voluntary housing
programs. I spoke to the Attorney General's Office in October. At the time we had
submitted three opinion requests and drafts had been completed on all three and they
were going through the review process. We haven't heard since. This could be a
fairly controversial decision because a lot of localities have taken the position that the
affordable housing programs under state law are voluntary. There are some localities
in Northern Virginia who have acted under a different Section, which is immediately
next to the one we operate under, that have older mandatory programs. Loudon
County got new enabling authority two years ago and they have adopted Fairfax
County's mandatory program."]
--The Housing Committee adopted the national definition of affordable
housing", i.e. "decent and safe housing at a cost that doesn't exceed 30% of a family's
income. The Committee decided to ask the Board of Supervisors to target their
efforts, whether money or ordinances, to three income groups: (1) Those families
making between 0 and 35% of the median income ($0 - $17,000); (2) Those making
between 35% and 50% of the median income ($17,000 - $24,600); and (3) Those
making between 50% and 80% of the median income ($24,600 - $39,400). In the first
range, the maximum available monthly for housing is $431, in the second range from
$431 - $616, and in the third range from $616 - $986. "We felt the work of the
Housing Committee was to target people at 80% and below." People working at
minimum wage (just under $11,000/yr) would be in the lowest range. The Committee
hopes to come up with a "hard number" price range for the Commission and the
Board to be able to tell developers. Currently, the number being studied is $75,000 -
$135,000. The Committee hopes to have more information ready by the end of the
year in terms of architectural type, bedroom size, etc.
--She described the experience Montgomery County, Maryland has had with its
mandatory ordinance, including how the different price ranges have been mixed in
different developments and the impact on property values. (Mr. Watson offered to
provide the Commission with copies of a Washington Post article about one of the
/ `51/
3-10-98 6
i�`"' projects mentioned by Ms. McDonald. He said one important point in the article is that
a study showed that there was no discrimination among different socio-economic
classes. "They got along beautifully, with no problems.")
--When she began as the County's Housing Chief in 1995, there were 370
people on the housing waiting list. There are now 1,108, all with incomes of 50% or
less of median income.
M
Mr. Tice asked what developers are telling the Housing Committee as to why they
have not taken advantage of the bonus provisions for affordable housing. Ms.
McDonald responded: "They can still build; they don't have to (build affordable
housing)." She said she has not had a developer tell her, personally, that they
believe the inclusion of affordable housing units will effect the sale of the market units
(i.e. the higher priced units). Mr. Keeler said he believes the financial institutions, "to
a great extent, drive this." Builders will build if they feel like they can sell, but the
package is not an easy one to put together. Ms. McDonald added: "If you can build a
product and still sell it, why complicate your life and go through the bonus density
process when you don't have to do it." (Mr. Rieley said he believes many developers
feel the increased density is not advantageous.)
Mr. Nitchmann invited Ms. McDonald to come back to the Commission in the near
future with a report on the achievements of the Housing Committee thus far, including
the disappointments and the vision for the future. He felt this information would be
very helpful in some of the decisions which the Commission must make.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Watson his feelings as to why the bonus provisions for
affordable housing are not used. Mr. Watson said he believes financing is a factor.
He suggested that some mortgage bankers should be included in these discussions.
Regarding the bonus provisions in general, he said the county's topography is a factor,
as are the open space requirements, setbacks, VDOT requirements, etc. "These are
a lot of impediments and make it very difficult for us to achieve the densities that are
currently allowed without invoking any bonus provisions." He feels the work of the DIS
committee is very important and may result in the lessening of some of these
impediments.
Public comment was allowed.
Mr. Charley Tracta, President of the Woodbrook Homeowner's Association, addressed
the Commission. He said his neighborhood was impacted by the recently approved
Still Meadows development. He stressed that the Commission needs to be aware that
"communities are very concerned about the bonus lot problem." He said citizens are
not sure as to when they should become involved in the process. He said the notices
which come in the mail "really don't tell us what is going to happen and whether we
should be here or not." He said: "We want to work with you but you have to tell us
when." He said he believes "there are some problems with low income housing." He
/ �?,A
M
3-10-98 7
said he was surprised by some of Mr. Watson's comments and "if I were a developer I
would be upset about some of the things that developers are directed to do. He
compared it to Socialism, i.e. "we, as a community, and you as a government body,
say to a developer 'you have to do something with your land."' He said it appears low
income housing is being directed "where the community feels it belongs" based on the
accessibility of shopping, schools, etc. He said that the "Rio community" has Rio Hills,
Squire Hill, and Mall Side. He questioned why this type of housing is not being
placed in Keswick or Ivy. He said to continue to put this type of housing in one area
will eventually result in ghetto areas. "The people who surround these areas are
impacted. He said schools get special programs based on the number of low income
children in the school. Because Woodbrook Elementary has few low-income children,
it does not get monies needed to pay for special programs which children from all
incomes may need. Woodbrook provides breakfast for low-income children, but
because there is no federal, state or local assistance available (because the number
of low-income children are not high enough for the school to qualify), the parents of
Woodbrook children must pay for this program. He concluded: "I don't want anybody
living in a cardboard box, but I also don't want the government to start housing people
so people don't have to house themselves. He felt the County should be looking at
the desires of local citizens who may need assistance, and should not just assume
those citizens want to be housed in low-income housing. "Instead of just looking to
build affordable homes, shouldn't the County be trying to help the people in the low
income range. Or are we just building this low income housing so people from
Richmond, Virginia Beach, and New York and Baltimore can move down here to a
nicer new community?" He said he does not feel the Housing Committee has
considered all the issues and has not sought the input of community residents who will
be impacted by their decisions.
Mr. Nitchmann said he was under the impression the bonus discussion was just for
the Commission's information. He did not think there had been any recommendation
for changes. Mr. Loewenstein confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Nitchmann's statement.
He said the purpose of this work session had been clear and it is always the goal of
the Commission to make the public aware of items which are up for discussion. Mr.
Loewenstein added: "Obviously, we cannot publish a lengthy, detailed analysis of
these topics each week. A work session is just what it says and it is up to the
individual members of the community and associations that send their representatives
to decide for themselves whether or not they think now, or some other time, is the
time to come forward. We always appreciate input. For the last two years as Chair I
have consistently sought public input, even when not required by our Rules of
Procedure or by law. Some responsibility has to be taken by the community and if
there are concrete suggestions which anyone wishes to make to the Planning
Department staff about how we can better communicate the nature of meetings, I think
that would be welcome. But, my own opinion is that the descriptions that are provided
are fairly clear."
l ��
3-10-98 8
Mr. Tice recalled two issues had been raised in the Still Meadows hearing about the
bonus provisions: (1) For future proposals, how can the Commission and the public
be educated about the potential bonuses that can be applied to a particular property
so there is not another situation where a lot of people, including some Commissioners,
become aware of potential bonuses the night of the meeting; and (2) The Commission
should take a harder look at the various bonuses and the technical aspects of how
they are calculated to see if they are achieving the results intended, and do changes
need to be made. He said Ms. McDonald's presentation makes him feel that in the
affordable housing bonus alone there are a number of issues which need to be looked
at.
Mr. Nitchmann said the easiest way to deal with the first issue is just to include a
sheet (like the example provided with the staff report) with each development proposal
which shows an analysis, when applicable, of the potential development which could
be achieved if bonus provisions were to be used. The Commission supported this
recommendation. On the second issue, however, Mr. Nitchmann was very reluctant to
add any additional study projects to staffs current workload at this time. He pointed
out that there are several current studies which have been underway for some time,
including the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
the Fiscal Impact Model, and the Rural Areas Section of the Comp Plan, which should
be completed before anything else is started. He said adding another study will push
the completion of some these items even farther away, and at some point the quality
of the work which is produced is going to begin to suffer. He said he could not
support another work session on this topic at this time.
Mr. Tice said he did not disagree with Mr. Nitchmann's concerns, but he did not want
a repeat of the Still Meadows situation, and the neighborhood groups around Still
Meadows made it clear they wanted to see some attention given to this issue. He
feared if it is postponed "we'll never come back to it." Mr. Nitchmann disagreed. He
said in the six years he has been on the Commission he cannot recall a single
significant issue which has been identified which has not been addressed.
Mr. Nitchmann said you cannot just keep adding study after study unless the public is
willing to pay more taxes to get these things done." "We can't expect the staff to
keep doing an excellent job on all these proposals and continue to ask them to do
more and more because quality starts suffering and things start taking an unusually
long time to complete. We, the Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the
citizens, are the ones who increase the workload of the staff." He stressed that a
work session involves an detailed staff report and a tremendous amount of work. He
agreed, however, that the issue of bonus provisions does need to be addressed at
some point, but not immediately. He said he has not had any comments from
citizens in his district about this issue. He said he disagrees with Mr. Tracta's
comments which seem to imply that "we have put all of the low-income housing in his
backyard on purpose." Mr. Nitchmann said he does not know what housing Mr.
f,F�4
on
CEM
3-17-98
MARCH 17, 1998
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March
17, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis
Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr.
Pete Anderson, UVA Representative, and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. The
minutes of the March 3, 1998, meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
NOTE: There is no tape recording of this meeting. These minutes were
prepared entirely from the Recording Secretary's notes.
Mr. Bob Watson was allowed to address the Commission prior to the commencement
of regular business. He presented the Commission with copies of an article about an
affordable housing program in Montgomery County, Maryland, which Ms. Jenny
McDonald, Director of Housing for Albemarle County, had talked about at the previous
week's work session on Bonus Provisions. He also had other articles on the
affordable housing issue and a copy of the Montgomery County Code.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP 98-003 Westminster of the Blue Rldge Preliminary Site Plan Waiver/Modification
Request - Proposal to construct 15 dwellings (seven duplexes and one single) within
the Westminster Canterbury development on 55.787 acres zoned Planned Residential
Development (PRD). Requests for waivers/modifications to allow construction of
critical slopes (Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance) and parallel parking (Section
4.12.6.5 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Addition to Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District - Request to add 11.971 acres
zoned RA Rural Areas to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. The property,
described as Tax Map 88, Parcel 29, is located on the west side of Route 29 South
(Monacan Trail Road) approximately 2 miles north of Route 708 (Red Hill Road). The
site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is designated Rural Area in
the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO FORWARD TO
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
/9�
3-17-98
Withdrawal from the Lvy-Creek Agricultural/Forestal District - Request to withdraw
2.017 acres zoned RA Rural Areas from the Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District.
The property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 21, part thereof, is located on the
south side of Route 676 (Woodlands Road) approximately 1 mile west of Magisterial
District and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION TO FORWARD TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Mr. Rieley asked if the Westminster Plan has been before the Architectural Review
Board. Mr. Cilimberg said it has been before the ARB, but he did not know if
preliminary approval was granted.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-04 Chris Green Lake Fishing -Pier - Request for a special use permit to enlarge
an existing fishing pier (30.3.5.2.1) at Chris Green Lake, to provide improved
accessibility for persons with disabilities. The property, described as Tax Map 32,
Parcel 41, is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and accessed from State
Route 850 (Chris Green Lake Road). It is zoned Rural Areas and designated Rural
Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff was requesting deferral to April 7.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-04 be deferred
to April 7. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-01 Western Ridae' Phase 2 - Proposal to rezone approximately 14.5 acres
with R-4 proffers to PRD, Planned Residential Development. The purpose of this
rezoning is to modify the front setbacks permitted and to allow the use of Zero Lot
Lines. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 93 (part) is located within the
Western Ridge Development which is on the south side of Route 240 in Crozet. This
site is located in the Whitehall Magisterial District. This area is recommended for
Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of
Crozet.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The staff report recommended approval "provided
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are satisfied that the use of the
Planned Development approach in this case is not circumventing prior decisions made
regarding the use of zero lot lines.... Staff does not find the use of zero lot lines or a
reduction in front setback to be inconsistent with the public health, safety or welfare.
// 7
3-17-98 3
Further, staff opinion is that this rezoning does not result in a change in the character
of development within Western Ridge. Generally, this request is consistent with
provisions of Section 8.5.4. Mr. Fritz said the staff can recommend approval if the
Board and Commission are prepared to accept planned development for only a portion
of the property. The staff report explained: "The reason the PRD zoning is being
requested is to allow for Zero Lot Line style of development, which is only permitted
within a Planned Development approach."
Mr. Rooker asked if there are any other subdivisions with mixed zoning. Mr. Fritz said
Forest Lakes is a mixture of Planned Residential Development (PRD) and Planned
Development Shopping Center (PDSC). South Forest Lakes is also a mixture of
residential zoning and commercial.
Referring to the map on display, Mr. Tice asked if only 1/2 of the property being
requested for rezoning is shown. Mr. Fritz explained that the map on the right shows
all of the buildable part of the property for the rezoning.
Mr. Rieley asked staff to explain why action on the Zoning Text Amendment proposing
the concept of zero lot line (March 1997), was deferred by the Board. Mr. Cilimberg
said the Commission had recommended approval of the ZTA, but the Board decided
to wait until the work of the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC)
is complete. He pointed out that the ZTA would have applied "across the district,"
whereas this proposal is for a particular property.
Staff said the only item which is yet to be addressed by the applicant is the verification
of adequate fire flow.
Mr. Tice, who serves on the DISC, said the issue of zero lot lines has not been
discussed, and probably won't be for some time yet.
Applicant comment was invited.
The applicant was represented by Mr. David Pettit. He displayed a drawing showing
the layout of the property and the boundaries. He said this proposal is for a total of
58 lots and he described how this part of the property is separated from the rest of the
property. He stressed that the critical issue is the proffer related to setbacks. His
comments included the following:
-- Under the existing R-4 zoning, 58 or more "attached" single-family residences
could be built, but only 48 "detached" residences could be built, because of setback
requirements. The market has shown that buyers prefer "detached" residences. This
proposal, with modified setbacks, will allow 58 single-family detached residences.
-- The applicant feels to develop this property with only 48 residences is not
appropriate given the fact that infrastructure is in place to serve a much denser
development.
3-17-98 4
--The Board of Supervisors asked (when the Western Ridge rezoning was
approved in 1995) that the property be developed with a minimum of 230 lots and a
maximum of 277 lots because they wanted as efficient a use of this property as
possible. This proposal allows for the efficient use of the property.
--The proposal responds to changes in the housing market which were not
anticipated when the property was rezoned to R4 in 1995.
--Approval of the request will allow the applicant to achieve the requested
density for the Western Ridge property as a whole. If this proposal is approved, 232
lots can be built on all of Western Ridge (the minimum requested by the Board).
Though the minimum could also be achieved with single family attached units, those
types of units are not what the public wants.
--This request does not increase the density of the development above that
contemplated in the original rezoning.
--This proposal is not inconsistent with the types of dwelling units which have
already been bought in Western Ridge.
--The only impact on Crozet is that this will result in a more efficient use of the
growth area. This part of the property is surrounded by the railroad and other parts of
Western Ridge, so there will be no spillover into the Crozet growth area.
--The proposal is consistent with the philosophy of the PRD in size, and in the
fact that it is separated from surrounding properties by existing features and features
which will be constructed.
--The amenities are already in place to serve development at this density. The
amenities were designed to serve 230 to 277 units.
--This is not an "end run" around the zero -lot line amendment for those who
thought it should be studied further. What is being requested is similar to approvals at
Glenmore and Foxcroft. The applicant does not feel this is in any way in conflict with
the Board decision to defer action on a county -wide zero lot line amendment.
Mr. Pettit concluded by stressing that this request will not allow any greater density
than what is already permitted by -right. The applicant is simply asking to be able to
develop in an efficient way to meet a demonstrated market need. The plan achieves
the minimum density the Board asked the developer to achieve. Without this change,
the applicant will have to construct single family attached units, which the market is
not accepting at this time.
Mr. Finley asked staff to comment on how zero lot lines provide for variability and
flexibility. Mr. Fritz said staff had reviewed three different building footprints to make
sure they will work with the zero lot line concept.
Mr. Rooker asked how many presently live in the Western Ridge community. The
applicant's representative could not answer. Mr. Fritz was not certain but estimated
there to be between 50 and 70 units occupied.
09
3-17-98 5
Using a drawing of the proposed plan, Mr. Pettit showed the areas which are to be
developed and also showed a sketch showing some potential designs for the front of
the dwellings.
Referring to Attachment C, page 6, of the Staff Report, Mr. Tice noted that it says
approval of this request will allow 10 more units than by -right development. Mr. Fritz
said by -right development, with usual setbacks would allow 48 detached units. This
proposal, with modified setbacks, will allow 58 detached units. Mr. Fritz confirmed,
however, that the maximum limit for the entire development is not changed. The
maximum is still 278 for the entire property. Mr. Pettit said: "This allows us to
achieve the bottom end (of what the Board wanted), but puts us in no danger of
exceeding the maximum."
Mr. Fritz explained how zero lot lines impact the front and side setbacks. (This
explanation is included in the staff report .)
Mr. Kamptner asked staff to clarify a discrepancy between the staff report and the
applicant's proffer related to front setback. Proffer No. 10 says 25 feet, but the staff
report says 20 feet. Mr. Fritz said he had called the applicant about this discrepancy,
but the applicant had not responded to that phone call. Mr. Fritz said he thinks a
typographical error is the cause of the discrepancy. He said the five feet difference
would have little effect.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bob Watson, who serves on the DISC Committee, said the Committee's study will
not be complete until late 1998. Changes in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
will undoubtedly be recommended. He said it will probably be a couple of years
before the committee deals with the issue of zero lot lines and the committee voted
that proposals should not be "held hostage to something that may or may not
happen."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff had received any comments from residents of the Western
Ridge community. Mr. Fritz said he had received some phone calls with requests for
information. No one expressed either support for nor opposition to the proposal. No
letters were received.
Mr. Tice asked how this proposal fits in with the Crozet Community Study. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Crozet Study was done before the approval of Western Ridge.
Staff had not looked at the study because this proposal is i� � an already approved area
OR
3-17-98
and does not propose a significant change
consistent with the Crozet Study.
A
He could not say whether the plan is
Mr. Tice asked if the Engineering Department or Water Resources Manager had any
comments. Mr. Fritz said they had not commented because this property is part of the
same area which was has already been approved with subdivision plats for the first
phase of development.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be any different impact on stormwater detention
requirements. Staff said the only impact will be that the contribution to the Lickinghole
Basin will be greater because of the increase in impervious surface. It makes little
difference if the units are attached or detached. No on -site detention will be required
because of the Lickinghole Basin. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this development is
very close to the Lickinghole Basin.
Referring to the southern area of the property, Mr. Tice asked if the designation of
open space is proffered. Mr. Fritz replied negatively. He said no plan has been
submitted for that side of the property. Mr. Tice asked if this request is approved will
zero lot lines apply on the southern area of the property. Mr. Fritz replied: "No. They
could do a minor zoning map amendment to have these proffers apply on that side."
Mr. Rieley noted that this development is within the threshold of density that would
allow the Planning Commission to require sidewalks. Mr. Fritz said the Commission
could require internal pedestrian pathways, and this is the opportunity to address that
concern, or the Commission could make a recommendation to the Board that the
original Planned Development be modified to require sidewalks. Staff was uncertain
whether pathways presently exist. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the Commission can go
ahead and make a recommendation that there should be pedestrian pathways and
before the Board hearing the staff will check to see what currently exists. He
confirmed that this is a density where pathways or sidewalks can be required.
Mr. Tice confirmed Mr. Watson's comments about the DISC study., i.e. the
Committee feels the Commission and Board should make decisions on the merits of
an application and should not postpone decisions because a study is underway.
Mr. Tice said he is not concerned about the issue of approving a PRD within the
development.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 98-01 for Western
Ridge, Phase 2, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers. (A restatement of this motion was made after
fWtber discussion.)
�ssQn:
o0
3-17-98 7
Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Finley would amend his motion to include a requirement for
sidewalks. Mr. Finley said he understood staff to say they would research this issue
further before the Board hearing. Mr. Cilimberg again said he is uncertain about what
presently exists, though he thinks there may be a pathway "on this side of Park Ridge
Drive." Mr. Rieley said he believes this is a density that deserves sidewalks, and not
just an asphalt pathway. He preferred the term "sidewalk." Mr. Tice questioned
whether the Commission can "require" items in a rezoning. Mr. Kamptner said the
Commission could recommend approval with a recommendation that a modification be
made to the Planned Development to require sidewalks.
There was a discussion of how the County deals with sidewalks in terms of
maintenance, etc. Mr. Kamtpner said the developer will initially be responsible for
maintenance, but it will ultimately become the responsibility of the homeowners'
association. If the roads are accepted into the state system, VDOT's policy, for
sidewalks or pathways within their right-of-way, is that they are the responsibility of the
County. The County passes this responsibility on to the homeowners' association. Mr.
Kamptner said homeowners' associations would have to set aside a fund for sidewalk
maintenance and would be required to report to the county annually. Mr. Cilimberg
said there are standards for both pathways and sidewalks, and the Planning
Commission can stipulate the standards. Mr. Nitchmann was reluctant to require
sidewalks at this point. He suggested that the Commission "highly recommend
sidewalks, but let the applicant work with staff' to address the issue before the Board
hearing." Mr. Cilimberg again said that the Commission can, based on the density,
require sidewalks. He suggested the Commission could stipulate that "we work with
the applicant for the provision of sidewalks for the layout of this development for the
plat, and we will bring that back to you in the preliminary plat process where you will
be able to see how it fits, and you can then decide what you want to require." Mr.
Rieley said he found this approach acceptable. Mr. Nitchmann also agreed with Mr.
Cilimberg's suggestion.
Mr. Finley pointed out that more concrete means more runoff. He suggested that any
alternatives which would allow more water to get into the ground should be
considered. Mr. Rieley agreed Mr. Finley had a good point, but said he believes
sidewalks are an important part of an urban community.
RESTATEMENT OF MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA
98-01 for Western Ridge be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, and that staff work with the applicant
for the provision of sidewalks for the layout of this development and that the issue of
sidewalks be brought back to the Commission as a part of the review of the
preliminary plat.
The motion passed unanimously.
M
3-17-98 8
ZMA 98-04 Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School - Proposal to rezone
approximately 2.3 acres to amend the PUD, Planned Unit Development, zoning to
permit additional uses. The purpose of this request is to allow the existing Atlantic
Coast Athletic Club facility to be used as a private school. Property, described as Tax
Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club which is
located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is
recommended for Urban Density Residential (6-34 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
AND
SP 98-01 Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School - Proposal to allow the existing
Atlantic Coast Athletic Club facility to be used as a private school. Property, described
as Tax Map 61X2, Parcel 4B is the location of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club which is
located on Four Seasons Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. The site consists of
approximately 2.3 acres which is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and
is proposed to be amended with ZMA 98-04. This area is recommended for Urban
Density Residential (6-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning,
subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, and approval of the special permit,
subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz said the applicant's request is for a period of three
years, but only 2 years are actually envisioned. Based on neighborhood concerns, the
applicant has proffered out a number of by -right uses (Amended Proffer included as
Attachment D to staff report).
The applicant was represented by Ms. Heidi Parker. She briefly described the history
of the Charlottesville Catholic School and how quickly enrollment has increased,
making the present accommodations inadequate. Her comments included:
--The ACAC will continue to use some space at the same location --some
fitness services will be offered, along with summer youth camps and tennis courts.
--The school will be leasing 7,000 square feet, approximately 1/3 of the building.
--The majority of school activity will occur between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.
--Some interior modifications will be made to the building. The only exterior
modifications will be signage and a swingset.
--When it was realized that a zoning amendment would greatly expand the by -
right uses, the applicant quickly proffered out uses which could be more intense. Only
those uses which are of the same intensity, or less, remain, and those uses which the
ACAC already has. The only new uses are a library or museum, or public uses which
staff required not be proffered out.
--The applicant is confident this use will not negatively impact adjacent property
owners because it is a much less intense use than what presently exists. It will result
in much less traffic and greatly reduced operational hours.
M
M
3-17-98 9
--The use is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and provides a much
needed use in the community.
--The applicant has no objections to the suggested conditions of approval.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Don Parsons, Treasurer of the Four Seasons Patio Homes Homeowners'
Association, addressed the Commission. He said his organization is not opposed to
the proposal. They want only to have a say as to the types of uses which can take
place on the property. The Association "can support the application as presented at
this time." (Mr. Parsons submitted a statement which is made a part of these minutes
as Attachment A. He did not read the statement into the record.)
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice asked why there is a condition that says the use cannot continue after June
30, 2001. Mr. Fritz said this is based on the fact that there are is no space for
recreational fields.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 98-04 for the
Temporary Charlottesville Catholic School, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, and with the
understanding that the proffers related to Section 22.2.1 will be amended as proposed
by the applicant prior to the Board hearing.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 98-01 for the Temporary
Charlottesville Catholic School, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Maximum enrollment will be 180 students.
2. Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
3. Site shall not be used as a school after June 30, 2001.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Committee Assignments - Mr. Cilimberg updated the Commission Committee
Membership as follows. -
Bypass Design Committee - Washington, Anderson
C/P Technical Committee - Nitchmann
,�06
3-17-98
10
City/County/University Planning & Coordination Council (PACC Tech) - Nitchmann,
Anderson
Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) - Rooker, Tice, Anderson
Fiscal Impact Committee - Nitchmann
Historic Preservation Committee - Loewenstein
Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committee - Tice, Washington
Mountain Protection Committee - Tice, Rieley, Nitchmann
Rural Area Transportation Study (RATS) -
Purchase of Development Rights Committee - Tice
Design Standards Manual Focus Group - Rieley
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8.40 p.m., ,
0:
OR
Wayne/Cilimberg,
,2U70