Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 22 1997 PC Minutes4-22-97 APRIL 22, 1997 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 22, 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. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; 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. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the April 16 Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA SUB 97-012 Blandemar Farm Estates Preliminary Plat - Request for Planning Commission approval of private roads - Property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcels 1, 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, 1 D, 1 E, 1 F and 1 G is located northeast of Route 708, Red Hill Road and Taylor's Gap Road at the intersection with Route 710. The property, containing a total of 1,103 acres, is zoned Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Dotson requested discussion of this item. Mr. Keeler gave a brief staff report and answered Commission questions about the proposal and the history of the development. He said the item is before the Commission because staff does not have the authority to approve some of the private roads which are being requested. No concerns have been raised by adjoining property owners. No new lots are being requested, but the already approved lots are being reconfigured. Mr. Keeler pointed out the location of the private roads and explained which lots each easement will serve. Though the preliminary plat has expired on this development, Mr. Keeler explained that the Commission is being asked to take action only on the private road request at this time. The re -approval of the preliminary plat is still under review by the staff. Mr. Dotson asked whether a Rural Preservation Development had been considered for this property. Mr. Keeler said there had been discussions about a preservation development, but at the time the preliminary plat was approved, "we had not translated from the Comprehensive Plan to the Zoning Ordinance the precise language for preservation development." He said there is some "problem language" in the Ordinance which says that conventional and rural preservation development cannot be mixed. "So, overall, the property did not fit the criteria for rural preservation development ... and, right now, there would be a prohibition against them coming back with the residue acreage to do a rural preservation 9 4-22-97 2 development. It would take an Ordinance amendment to address that." Mr. Dotson asked if the applicant had found this inability to do a preservation development frustrating. (Mr. Keeler deferred to the applicant.) Mr. Dotson asked what would happen if the private roads were not approved. Mr. Keeler confirmed, they could lose 4 lots, but "once they constructed that public road, they could then come back and develop lots 12 and 13 as a matter of right." Mr. Dotson asked if the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance which is presently under consideration would have had any impact on this development. Mr. Keeler said he thinks some of the building sites which are above 800 feet would have been effected. Mr. Keeler was not certain about the Mountaintop Ordinance elevation in this area but he pointed out those areas which he believed would be impacted. As to the nature of the impact, he said "there would be no building sites above the 800-foot elevation. The applicant's engineers would have to redesign the lots so as to have building sites below that elevation. There would probably be a reduction in the number of lots." One of the roads may also be impacted. Mr. Dotson said he wanted to understand this development "because it's scale and location are a strong signal to me. We've seen some analyses of buildout potential of what could happen in the rural areas. It seems to me this starts to be one of the puzzle pieces that fits into realizing that buildout analysis that shocked all of us. I want to understand exactly what we've got here." The applicant was represented by Mr. Kirk Hughes. He briefly explained the history of the development. Additional information and answers to Commission questions were as follows: --This is a revision of the plan approved in 1991. The preliminary plan lapsed after Phase II was built. --Approximately 3/4 mile of state road that was built in 1991 was approved, last fall, for acceptance into the state system. The only item remaining is to "put a seal coat surface" back on the road. (This is necessary because VDOT will not accept any road over five years old without a seal coat.) --The other roads, submitted to County Engineering in 1991, will be re -engineered and re -submitted and will meet VDOT's current standards. --A portion of Road B (at the end of the cul-de-sac) follows an existing "old" road. " Road A "crosses and runs with a part of an old road bed." There are probably 4 miles of old roads that meander through the property which have been used for farm use. They have been maintained by the farm manager and are quite accessible. --This plan has been approved twice previously and both times it expired because of the "timely matter in which the lots sold." --He said he is not aware of any problems with water supply in the development. Mr. Dotson asked if a rural preservation development would have been an advantage in the development of this property. Mr. Hughes said he believed the County had asked the developer to consider a type of preservation development in 1989. The applicant had, in response, submitted a plan which was rejected by the Planning Commission because there 4-22-97 3 was some misunderstanding as to what was envisioned by the County vs. what was envisioned by the applicant. That plan was withdrawn and a conventional development plan was submitted. [Later in the discussion Mr. Cilimberg said the Board had considered a special permit for this property which would have created a "quasi" rural preservation development under "completely different kinds of allowances." However, it had gotten caught up in discussions about easements and duration of easements. As a result, it was either denied by the Board, or was not acted upon. Mr. Cilimberg could not recall which.] Mr. Hughes said he has not studied how the proposed Mountaintop Protection Ordinance might impact this property, but "if the elevation for this area is 800, 900 or 1000 feet, it will have an impact on some of the building areas." Public comment was invited; none was offered. The matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson asked staff to comment on how private roads, in this case, will "serve the public interest as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider." I.e. "Are the roads principally motivated by the understandable desire to have four additional lots, or could it be framed in a different way to be in accord with the public interest?" Pointing to each individual road, Mr. Keeler explained: --"This road can be approved administratively. This joint entrance we recommended. The purpose here is to minimize entrances on the existing public road." --"There is already an existing road this distance, over to the building site on lot 13. ...It is basically driveway construction. It seemed to make environmental sense, instead of bringing the public road back here and putting a cul-de-sac in the vicinity of the dam, to allow the easement for that." --"This one is clearly to provide access to a lot that you can't get to otherwise. You could build a public road and restrict the access to these two lots. This would qualify, under VDOT standards as a public road.... This could be a public road back to this point, with a cul-de-sac. You'd still have a driveway coming off of that and even if it came back to this point, we would likely recommend an easement from that point or a redrawing of the lot to ensure that the driveway is in this location as opposed to coming across the steeper areas to get to the building site." --"This is an existing road so we didn't feel there was any issue with that." Ms. Huckle asked who would be responsible for clearing these private roads during winter storms. Mr. Keeler said even if they are public roads, he was fairly certain they would be some of the last cleared. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Keeler said a private road is 14 feet wide, while a public road is at least 18 feet wide. Noting that a public road would require more grading disturbance, Mr. Finley said he could see no advantage to a public road. Mr. Dotson said if the private roads were not approved, the developer might decide not to put in a public road and the development would lose 3 or 4 lots (out of 63). /0 4-22-97 4 MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Request for Private Roads for the Blandemar Farm Estates Preliminary Plat be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dotson explained his questions about this proposal were the result of his feeling that it is important to "pause and register what, in fact, we have on the books and what can happen by right ... and this is something which is a longtime concern." ZMA 96-24 N&S, L.L.0 - Petition to rezone approximately 43 acres from R-2, Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to R-15, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Properties, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 54, 54A, 55B, 55D, are located on the north side of Rt. 631 (Fifth Street Extended) approximately .2 miles southwest of Interstate 64 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Parcels 54, 54A, 55B, are recommended for Transitional in Neighborhood 5. Parcel 46A (part) on the west side of Old Lynchburg Road,is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 5. Deferred from the April 15, 1997 Commission Meeting. Staff explained that both the applicant and staff were requesting deferral (to May 6) to have additional time to address some issues about the public road, particularly about the interchange with Rt. 631, and also to look further into a development concept which would N4.1 see these four parcels "develop in a general sense." The applicant has agreed to a deferral. The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne. He confirmed the applicant does not object to a deferral, provided it does not cause the Board date to change. He stressed that this deferral is not for the convenience of the applicant, and the applicant is prepared to proceed at this time, if the Commission desires. He said he feels the applicant and staff are "not really that far apart." Regarding the issue of a unified development plan, Mr. Payne said he feels the advantages of such a plan are "totally illusory in this case," for both the applicant and the County. Mr. Dotson said he was interested in hearing more about the mixed use possibility and the traffic issues, including a comparison of a single use vs. a mixed use proposal. (At the end of the meeting Mr. Dotson felt the City should be advised of this proposal and comment invited.] Public comment was invited; none was offered. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 96-24 be deferred to May 6. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION - Greenway Section of the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Benish introduced the topic. 4-22-97 5 Commission comments, concerns and suggestions were as follows- --Loewenstein (bottom pg. 17) - Add more specific strategies for achieving the partnerships. --Loewenstein (pg. 18) - He strongly supported incorporating the Greenway plan into development. He said developers will see the value of their land increase as a result of the greenway and the entire county will benefit. Mr. Finley asked if developer participation would be by "persuasion" or is an ordinance requirement envisioned which might require developers to dedicate greenway easements. [ Mr. Cilimberg said, under existing law, the County can show a greenway location, but cannot require a developer to dedicate an easement. Mr. Kamptner confirmed that dedication of these greenway easements would be voluntary.] --Loewenstein (pg. 18) - Add a statement which explains the research on which the statement that "crime has not been a major problem on these trails," is based. (Ms. Huckle felt the possibility of crime is a legitimate concern.) --Finley (referring to the list of areas to be included in the Greenway) - He said there may be areas of the County which, for various reasons, would not lend themselves to trails, etc., and he felt a stronger statement about those areas should be included. --Mr. Loewenstein asked how the Greenway Plan will be effected if it is found that there are sections which not attainable. Mr. Cilimberg said a decision would have to be made about how many public dollars (CIP) should be spent to complete those parts of the system. Ms. Huckle said she did not think the trail system needs to be "seamless" because few people would want to walk an entire 52 miles at one time. Mr. Benish said staff anticipates it will be a very "broken up" system, possibly for a long time, perhaps forever. --Huckle (pg. 8) - She asked for a clarification of: "from the Rivanna Reservoir boat launch, to a point 1,200 feet south." Mr. Benish responded: "This is from the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir dam to a point upstream." --Huckle (pg. 9) - She asked for clarification of: "from a point west of the Earlysville Road bridge to the Ivy Creek Natural area." Mr. Benish said this is an error. It should say "from a point east of the bridge." --Finley (pg. 4) - He asked how the Advisory Committee will be chosen. After hearing Mr. Benish's explanation, he said the responsibilities of the committee listed on page 4 did not reflect Mr. Benish's description that the Committee would be working in the community to get public opinion, etc. Mr. Tice asked if any consideration has been given to adding the Greenway to the responsibilities of the Public Recreational Facilities Authority which already exists. Mr. Benish said Mr. Mulaney (Director of Parks and Rec), envisions the Advisory Committee in more of a "hands-on, leadership role." The Recreational Facilities Authority has not had that type of role. There have been discussions, however, about whether the Recreational Facilities Authority might be able to hold the easements. --Mr. Nitchmann said there should be a section somewhere in this document which describes the costs of construction and maintenance for all four types of trails. He said people have a right to know how much this is going to cost. It should be clear that this may be a tremendous burden to future generations. Mr. Loewenstein agreed that cost needs to be addressed. There was a discussion about whether the right of Eminent Domain could be applied to greenway acquisition. Mr. Kamptner explained: "It might. The County does have the ability 4-22-97 6 to use the power of Eminent Domain to acquire property for a system of public recreation and playgrounds. So, if a greenway would fall within the scope of public recreation, it probably does." Ms. Huckle responded: "That being the case, what connection is there, legally, between the authority that holds easements and this authority that is going to take land to put in the greenway?" Mr. Cilimberg said the Advisory Committee would not hold any easements. It's purpose would be to advise the County on where the possibilities exist for donation of easements or acquisition. Mr. Kamptner confirmed that the Recreational Facilities Authority was created by the Board of Supervisors and may have the responsibility to maintain the property. The Advisory Committee may have the power to purchase property, but it would not have the power of Eminent Domain. Mr. Benish said, at this point, there is no plan to use the power of Eminent Domain to acquire property. Ms. Huckle said she feels this is a very important aspect of this Plan which needs to be clarified. Mr. Nitchmann agreed. He said if the County can condemn property for this Greenway, it should be very clearly stated in this document. (Mr. Cilimberg suggested all possibilities for acquisition should be listed, "from donation to condemnation.") Ms. Huckle said she could not possibly support this Plan if any type of condemnation is possible. Mr. Nitchmann said he was very bothered by the possibility of condemnation also. Even if it is not the intent to use condemnation at this time, in 20 years staff will be different, the Commission and Board will be different and the Advisory Committee will be different, and the county's agenda may not be what it is today. Mr. Nitchmann also expressed concerns about property owners' liability in the event someone should be injured when crossing their land. Mr. Tice suggested the addition of a policy statement that Eminent Domain should not be used for acquisition of property. Mr. Nitchmann agreed that would be desirable, but wondered how effective such a statement is because what the Commission says does not override the law. Mr. Kamptner said: "As a statement of policy, the Board can decide, as a policy matter, they won't look to Eminent Domain as a means to acquire property. Of course, future Boards can exercise their police power and condemn, and every Board can amend the plan." He suggested that he examine the issue of Eminent Domain more thoroughly before final discussions take place on the Greenway Plan. Ms. Huckle asked that he also look into "any legal connection between the Recreational Authority holding easements and the question of Eminent Domain." Mr. Kamptner said the Recreational Authority is a completely different entity from the Board of Supervisors and only the Board (i.e. the County) has the power of Eminent Domain. Mr. Dotson asked that the County Attorney also examine the effects of an Ag-Forestal District on the use of the power of Eminent Domain. Public comment was invited. Dr. Kenneth Lawless addressed the Commission. He strongly supported the Greenway but expressed concern that some areas which he felt were important, were not included. In particular, he suggested adding a section on the North Rivanna, from Proffit Road, south (between Key West and Profitt Road), and sections of Mechunk Creek. He recommended that construction of trails be very simple so as to remain in their natural state and to keep maintenance costs as low as possible. He pointed out that many trails already exist as a 13 4-22-97 7 result of many years of use by fishermen, canoeists, etc. He recommended that the Advisory Committee be made up of "extremely knowledgeable people who understand botany, ornithology, mammals, etc." Mr. Jerry Brice expressed support for the Greenway. He asked if compliance with Section 106, the Historic Preservation Act, has been examined. He suggested that a cultural impact study be required. The Commission took no formal action on the Greenway Plan. Another Work Session will be held. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Huckle asked if staff has been able to determine if Airport Road meets the criteria for designation as an Entrance Corridor. Mr. Cilimberg said research thus far indicates that it will not qualify because it is classified as a collector road. To be designated as an Entrance Corridor road, it must be classified as an arterial road. Ms. Huckle asked staff to check on the status of the Airport Auto Garage site which was recently approved for extended parking. She said cars are being parked on the site but no screening has been installed. Mr. Cilimberg said he would call this to the attention of the ° Zoning Department because a site plan has not yet been submitted for this site. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. W OR V. WayrA Cilim_4srg--Sec,,ret4ry /f