HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 14 1997 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ax
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1997 -- 5:00 P.M.
MICHIE ANNEX CONFERENCE ROOM
A Joint Meeting of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Planning Commissions
was held this date with the following members present:
Ms. Susan Cabell
Mr. Blake Caravati
Mr. Housley Carr
Ms. Nancy Damon
Mr. William Harris, Chair
Mr. Eldon Wood
ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
Ms. Jacquelyn Huckle
Ms. Hilda R. Lee -Washington
Mr. William Nitchman
Mr. William W. Finley
Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein, Chair
ABSENT:
Mr. Herman Key
ABSENT:
Mr. David A. Tice
Mr. A. Bruce Dotson
STAFF PRESENT:
Satyendra Singh Huja, Director of Planning & Community Development (City)
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development (County)
Mr. Pete Anderson, University of Virginia
Mr. David Hirschman, City & County Water Resource Manager
Mr. David Vanaman, City Engineer - Public Works/Engineering Division
Mr. Harris opened the meeting thanking the County Planning Commission for their
attendance. Mr. Loewenstein indicated that these presentations should be useful and
informative. The members present, went around the table and introduced themselves.
1. University Master Plan Presentation - Pete Anderson
Mr. Anderson indicated that he is not presenting the Master Plan, but the concepts
and principles behind it. Mr. Anderson presented the history of development of the
University within the context of the University Master Plan. He said we first need
to look back and see how the University got where it is now. He said this is a look
at the University in the Year 2050. He indicated that there are eight underlying
principles that would guide the University in that time period. These principles are:
academical village; academical town; one place of many places; a return to the
walking environment; boundaries and flesh holes; comprehensive solutions;
unification through consolidation, and; concepts of interconnection of precincts of
the University. He discussed the development of a transportation center at
University Hall and a concept of a jitney bus system. He discussed the idea of
getting some of 0 "opened up" on the University ground with more visible streams
-l-
/ 60 4
Vin
and ponds. He said the academical village is the head and the heart of the future
plan. He said there are a lot of unanswered questions on traffic, parking, and
neighborhoods. He said they are projecting 19,400 students by 2004. He said
their immediate priority is tying the north grounds to the central grounds. He said
nothing indicates a need to add land and he believes that there is enough land
existing to meet their future needs.
Ms. Cabell inquired as to why the 50 year framework? Mr. Anderson indicated
that it is to focus on the concepts instead of the details.
Mr. Nitchman indicated that this was an excellent presentation of the University
long range thinking. Mr. Caravati indicated that parking is a privilege and not a
right. He inquired as to what kind of response was given by students and the
faculty. He also inquired about the status of the West Main Street Residential
College. Mr. Anderson responded that the quality of life is important to students.
He also indicate that at this time, there is not much encouragement for the West
Main Street Residential College.
Mr. Harris indicated that at the current rate of assumption, known petroleum
reserves will be depleted in 75 years.
2. Water Quality Presentation - David Hirschman
Mr. David Hirschman, the City and County Water Resources Manager, presented
the Consolidated Water Resources Ordinance as a work in progress. He explained
the process of using a focus group and discussed the background of the efforts made
so far including developing goals and directions and formulating this joint ordinance
which is felt to be needed. He gave a brief history of land use protection
mechanisms in the area including run-off controls, erosion and sediment control,
best management practices, storm water management and others. He discussed the
County provision on RPA's and the review of the Moore's Creek and Meadow
Creek Studies. He explained the objectives for the comprehensive ordinance to
provide a regional storm water approach, to streamline the development review
process, update methods for determining water quantity and quality amounts, and
allow for a wider range of BMP's and storm water techniques. He said the focus
group was a cross section of expertise which was helpful in looking at problems with
the current systems, discussing education of the public, reviewing and commenting
on drafts of the consolidated ordinance, resolving design manual issues, and
refinement of the matrix dealing with land use policies/water objectives.
Mr. Huja indicated that he is interested in further discussions of planning
implications of the proposed water quality ordinance. Ms. Cabell and Mr. Caravati
indicated the need for a regional approach.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the need for emphasis on quality instead of just the
quantity.
-2-
/�06
on
on
Mr. Vanaman indicated that in the future, we will need to think of regional
treatment of storm water.
Mr. Finley indicated that work so far does not deal with bacteria or desoil oxygen.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the County Planning Commission will be reviewing the
chapter in the Comprehensive Plan on water quality.
Mr. Harris concluded, thanking the presenters and emphasizing the interdependent
nature of the City and the County. Mr. Loewenstein concluded with remarks that it
is important to have mutual discussions of mutual problems.
Both Chair's thanked the Commission members present. There being no further business,
the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
-3-
cm
M
1-21-97
JANUARY 21, 1997
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 21,
1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann;
Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were:
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. William Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson,
UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner Washington.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
December 17, 1996, were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the January 8th and January 15th Board of
Supervisors meetings.
CONSENT AGENDA - SDP 96-129 Manor House at University Village Preliminary Site
Plan Critical Slopes Waiver Request - Request to disturb critical slopes in order to construct a
24,400 square foot assisted living facility on 4 acres zoned R-10, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 6013(2), Parcel 1 is located in the University Village development
located on Old Ivy Road approximately 0.4 miles east of the Route 29/250 Bypass in the Jack
Jouett Magisterial District.
Ms. Huckle said she did not understand why critical slopes must be disturbed given the fact
that there is flatter land closer to the road. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission the
original plan for this project had been on the flatter part of the site, but that plan was not
acceptable to the neighbors. Thus, the plan was approved by the Board after it was relocated
on the site, as is shown on this plan.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 96-23 Burton - Petition to rezone approximately .5 acres from R-4, Residential to CO,
Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 32C(3), Parcel 1, is located on the south
side of Rt. 649 approximately .2 miles east of Rt. 606 on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Rt. 649 and Deerwood Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of
Hollymead.
Before presentation of the staff report, the Commission took a few minutes to look over a
letter from the applicant which was received by staff this day (January 21).
61
1-21-97 2
. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request for the
following reasons: (1) Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations; (2)
Commercial use of this site is not in keeping with the residential character of the area to the
south; and (3) Approval would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. The report concluded: "No compelling purpose can be identified to support
rezoning of this site. Staff opinion is that commercial use of this property will have a
negative impact on the Deerwood Subdivision. Staff opinion is that residential zoning of this
site provides for a reasonable use of the land."
The applicant was represented by Ted Glass. He summarized the applicant's letter (which
was distributed to the Commission prior to the presentation of the staff report). Additional
comments included:
--The plat approved in 1966 was approved by both the Commission and the Board
with this property shown as a commercial area and it is clear this property was always
intended for commercial use. Everyone who has purchased a lot in Deerwood has been
provided with information showing clearly this property as commercial. [NOTE: Earlier in
the meeting Mr. Fritz said it was the Zoning Administrator's determination that this property
does not now, nor has it ever, carried commercial zoning. However, the original plat,
recorded in 1966, did show this site as "future commercial area."]
--The closest neighbor to this property has no objection to this rezoning.
--He suggested the R-4 zoning, which the Zoning Administrator has determined is this
property's current zoning, was an error. He said it is clearly out of place, given the
commercial office properties which are on both sides of the property.
--This plan makes allowance for the possible widening of Rt. 649.
--This site is not suitable for residential development given the fact that Rt. 649 will
be widened and the adjacent commercial uses. Because of those factors, residential
development which might take place on this property would be such that it would probably
decrease the property values of the existing residential properties.
--Commercial development would serve as a buffer between Rt. 649 and the existing
residential neighborhood.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Steve Riley, a resident of Deerwood, expressed opposition to the proposal. He pointed
out that the commercial area which already exists on Rt. 649 is not at the entrance to a
residential neighborhood. (Mr. Finley asked Mr. Riley if he was aware this property was
planned for commercial use when he purchased his property. Mr. Riley replied: "I would
have to check my closing papers, but, no, I don't recall that." Mr. Riley asked why the plat,
referred to by Mr. Finley, would show this property as Commercial if the zoning is R-4. Mr.
Fritz explained that the 1966 plat was prepared prior to the County's zoning laws.)
The applicant and owner of the property, Mr. Earl Burton, addressed the Commission. He
said the property could not be "reasonably" developed as R-4. All that could be placed on
the property would probably be modular, inexpensive housing which would serve as rental
/(0 A
1-21-97 3
property. He believed that would be more unacceptable to the Deerwood residents than a
nice office complex. He explained he plans to move his realty company into the bottom floor
of the commercial building. A 600 square foot community room is envisioned for the
structure which could be used by anyone in the community (for a fee). The proposed
development would not increase traffic in the Deerwood subdivision because it will stop
before it gets to the residential area. Rental housing would create much more traffic. He said
the closest neighbor to this site, Ms. Shifflett, has expressed no opposition to his plans, which
he has discussed with her in detail. Given the location of this property on the road leading to
and from the airport, he thought an office building would be more aesthetically pleasing than
would low -end rental housing.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff knew how the R-4 designation had been placed on the property.
Mr. Fritz said it was originally rezoned from Agriculture to Residential and then in the 1980
comprehensive rezoning got carried forward as R-4. Mr. Fritz confirmed that there is a copy
of the 1966 plat, showing this area as "future commercial" in the planning files. Mr.
Cilimberg added: "There was an actual decision by the Board to zone the property as
residential (in 1968). That shows in the history. Then the 1980 change in zoning was a
comprehensive change county -wide. What were agricultural properties at that time were
changed to RA or some other residential designation."
Regarding the possible future widening for Rt. 649, Ms. Huckle asked how the applicant has
addressed that issue. Mr. Fritz said the applicant's theoretical plans for possible development
of the property contemplated the increased setback and right-of-way dedication which, more
than likely (no road plans have yet been developed by VDOT), will be necessary to
accommodate the widening of Rt. 649. Ms. Huckle asked if this would be a gift to the
Highway Department. Mr. Fritz said: "We don't have a site plan right now and they are
under no obligation to install that unless there are improvements required to accommodate
their particular development. I'm glad to see them reserving them." Mr. Cilimberg stressed
there are no existing design plans for Rt. 649 and anything that might be proposed for
dedication in this situation is strictly hypothetical. He said: "We don't know where 649
would align and I'm not sure we would even want to accept a dedication at this point in time.
We should know within the year. Plans will be underway very soon for the design of the
road." Mr. Glass confirmed that the 40-foot reservation is "purely speculative, but it is our
best estimate" after having consulted VDOT about the road issue.
Ms. Huckle asked if the property is served by public sewer. Mr. Burton said the line is not at
the property, but is to the far corner of Ms. Shifflett's lot (the adjoining property). He said he
will have to get an easement from the neighbor to bring it to this property. He confirmed he
could not develop the property until the sewer is available.
In answer to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Burton said he has not met with the Deerwood
residents about the plans for this property. He said he decided to "let the signs do the talking
and they can call me on the phone." He said he would be glad to talk with them "if that
would help."
/�; 5
1-21-97 4
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he thought this was a very interesting situation given the fact that the
plat has always shown this site for commercial development. Usually the Commission hears
complaints because property owners are not made aware of potential future development
plans. He said in this case, "it is on the deed; it is on the realtor's brochure," but we still
have people saying it should stay R-4. He didn't know why R-4 had been placed on this
property but speculated it was probably "because in 1980 a lot of things were done quickly
because they were trying to get things done and it was probably just the easiest thing to do in
1980, to make it like the rest, and nobody bothered to pull this out and look at it." He
thought a denial of this request could send the message that the Commission does not really
want potential property owners made aware of possible future development plans which could
effect their properties, such as possible roads, etc. He said he could support the request for
office designation because he felt everyone who has purchased property in Deerwood was
made aware of the commercial plans for this site.
Mr. Fritz said he could find no additional information about the Planning Commission's 1966
approval, other than the fact that the 1966 plat shows this area as "future commercial." He
said this only shows up on the plats, but it does show on several plats.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the parcels owned by the applicant, on either side of Deerwood,
are the only residentially zoned properties on the south side of Rt. 649. Everything on the
north side of Rt. 649, down to within 1,000 feet of Rt. 29, is designated for industrial use in
the Comp Plan. The area close to the intersection is designated for commercial use.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the Comp Plan recommends commercial uses as a buffer between
residential and industrial uses. She said: "It seems to me that is exactly what this would be
doing --buffering the existing residential area from the highway and from the industrially
zoned land on the opposite side of the highway. It seems to me (commercial office) would
be preferable, both for the people who are presently living in Deerwood, and people who
could potentially reside on this property if it were to be zoned residential."
Mr. Fritz explained again that staff viewed this proposal differently than the commercial
property to the west because that site was farther away from Deerwood and did not share an
entrance, and some of the mature vegetation on the property was preserved. On this piece of
property, there are no natural barriers between the site and the residential properties. He said:
"Yes, they will be required to install landscaping as a part of the site review process --its
required-- but it will take a while for the landscaping to have a substantial effect and it will
never screen completely." He said staff did note, as pointed out by Ms. Huckle, that CO does
act as a transition between residential and more intense commercial.
Noting that the commercial use to the west has a wood fence, Mr. Dotson asked if fencing
could be required. Mr. Fritz replied: "We can require a fence or a combination of fencing
and landscaping --whatever is deemed most appropriate."
16 X
M
1-21-97 5
Mr. Dotson said he had visited the existing commercial office use to the west and had found
it to be very quiet. He said the fencing seemed to provide a reasonable buffer and the
vegetation did not seem to be very mature. Weighing the options, he said it was not realistic
to think the property would remain open and even if it did it does not provide any buffer or
protection to the residences. On the question of residential, he said that though it may look
like it would work on paper, after visiting the site, he did not think it was appropriate for
residential use. Therefore, based on his assessment of the existing office use, he concluded
that commercial office development would not be objectionable on this site. He said it would
offer some buffer from the road and would not be a noisy use. He suggested that, if the
Commission should decide to vote favorably on the request, the applicant might want to meet
with the neighbors to discuss landscaping and fencing.
Mr. Fritz confirmed this proposal covers only the property to the east of Deerwood Drive.
The applicant has not made a request on the property to the west, which, at present, remains
R-4. (Mr. Dotson interjected: 'But your point is a good one. What we do here is, in a
sense, addressing the whole thing.")
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that ZMA 96-23 / Burton be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Discussion:
Mr. Finley asked if any conditions should be placed on the approval. Mr. Kamptner pointed
out that conditions cannot be placed on a rezoning and any proffers must be made voluntarily
by the applicant. He added, however, that those items discussed by the Commission, will be
addressed during the site plan review process.
Mr. Dotson again expressed the expectation that the developer will meet with the neighbors
prior to the Board hearing.
The motion for approval of ZMA 96-23 passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
SP 96-50 SVRS, Inc. - Petition to allow the construction of a Rescue Squad station
[10.2.2(3)] on approximately 10 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is located on the
southwestern corner of Rt. 6 / Rt 737 intersection. This site, described as Tax Map 130,
Parcel 7, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This property is not located within
a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The
primary issue identified by staff was the location of the entrance. Staff recommended, and
the applicant agreed, to locate the entrance on Route 6. (The site plan had not yet been
revised to reflect this change in design.) Staff believed Rt. 6 provides superior access and
/4
1-21-97 6
minimizes impact on adjacent residential use. Rt. 737 is a gravel road and several residences
are located in the immediate area of the proposed rescue squad.
The applicant was represented by D.L. Bonner, Chairman of the Scottsville Rescue Squad.
He expressed appreciation to staff for their help. He asked that the Commission approve the
request. He said presently the squad is operating from a site in downtown Scottsville which
is in the floodplain. A garage on a separate site is used for storage of equipment. Parking
space is limited on the site. The existing meeting room is "unhealthy and too small."
Relocation is badly needed.
Mr. Finley asked if there would any advantage to having an entrance on both Rt. 6 and Rt.
737, with the 737 access serving as an "in only" access. Mr. Bonner said that having two
access points would probably be more convenient, but, in this case, "it is more important to
be a better neighbor and enter from Rt. 6." He noted also that constructing two entrances
would be more expensive.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. A.J. Medica, a resident of Rt. 626, addressed the Commission. (Mr. Medica moved to
this area and purchased his farm 6 years ago.) Though he expressed appreciation for the
Rescue Squad's work, and sympathized with the problems they have with the current site, he
was opposed to this request. He said he had not been notified of this proposal, though his
`►* property is contiguous with the site under review. (Mr. Cilimberg explained this had been
divided as "an exempt plat", and therefore no notification was required. The special permit
request requires notice to property owners of properties adjacent to this site. Mr. Bonner said
he thought copies of the site plan had been passed to all neighbors. He apologized to Mr.
Medica for the omission.) His reasons for opposition included the following:
--It is out of character with the rural area.
--Will cause a decrease in the value of his property.
--This site is not in a designated growth area.
--He believed the majority of the calls served by this station are from Buckingham and
Fluvanna. This site is farther away from the population areas it serves.
M
Ms. Mary McCormick expressed opposition to the proposed site. She asked if a survey had
been performed to determine from which areas the most calls are coming. She pointed out
that location on this site will require the use of a crooked road with a one -lane bridge. She
said it looks as if the service is being moved "away from the people in town and the people
who need it."
Mr. Steven Meeks, owner of property across from the existing rescue squad station, expressed
support for the request. He urged the Commission to support the request. He said sites in
Scottsville are very limited so it must have been very difficult to locate a site. He described
the existing site as very dangerous with a very cramped building. He described rescue squad
%v 6
cm
in
1-21-97
7
members as "very dedicated and resourceful," and he felt they would make good neighbors
wherever they may locate.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Bonner to explain how the site had been selected. Mr. Bonner first
offered to provide a report showing the distribution of calls. He said, contrary to some of the
public comments, the new location is closer to the center of the origin of the majority of
calls. The new site is only 2.5 minutes farther away from Scottsville. He said an informal
search committee had looked for property for seven years. Only two potential sites were
identified. One was too expensive and the other had contract problems (the two owners could
not agree on the terms). The owner of this property approached the rescue squad and offered
9.2 acres at a reasonable prise--$2,000/acre. He felt the site was ideal. He pointed out that
this site is closer to the school, closer to Keene, closer to Nelson, and not too far removed
from southern Fluvanna. However, he said the squad's primary interest is Albemarle County
and this site "certainly puts us farther into Albemarle County."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Bonner what route would be followed to reach an accident on Rt. 20.
Mr. Bonner explained several possible routes, the choice of which would depend on the exact
location of the accident. He confirmed that Rt. 626 has a one -lane bridge, but said rescue
squads must travel many routes with one -lane bridges, and "has no control over the routes."
If the permit is approved, Mr. Bonner hoped the new site could be operational by the end of
1997.
Addressing a statement made by a member of the public that the County would be funding
this rescue squad, Mr. Bonner explained: "This is a quarter -million dollar interest -free loan
which we receive through a County Fire and Rescue group." The loan is for 15 years.
Mr. Bonner confirmed the rescue squad has already purchased the land.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann, noting that this property lies in his district, said he has a very positive feeling
about this request. He praised the work of rescue squads, not only locally, but in all parts of
the state. He said the existing site is not very conducive to maximum performance. He said:
"We need to continue to make sure our rescue squads are strong in all of our communities. It
is difficult to find sites because they raise all their own funds." Though he understood Mr.
Medica's desire to main his farm has he had envisioned it would be when he moved here, he
said "But, there are people who have been living in this community for 50 or 60 years and
they depend on this rescue squad." He said he fully supported the petition.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 96-50 / SVRS be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
A�/ 7
1-21-97 8
1. Development shall be in general accord with the attached plan titled Scottsville Rescue
Squad, prepared by Robert Lum, revised 12/16/96 and initialed WDF 1/9/97. The plan may
be revised to address comments of the Site Review Committee and shall be revised to provide
an entrance located on Route 6 only.
2. Subordinate uses and fund raising activities such as, but not limited to, bingo, raffles and
auctions, shall require amendment of this special use permit.
Discussion:
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the use of sirens, Mr. Mike Johnson, Captain of
the Scottsville Rescue Squad, said sirens are not used to notify volunteers of an emergency
event. Radio frequency and pagers are used. The old style sirens are obsolete.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested to Mr. Bonner that he provide a report on the distribution of calls
to staff, who will make it available to the Board for their hearing.
-------------------------------------
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
M
W.
OR
(). " A..z �" -
V. Way e Cilimber etary
144