HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 06 1997 PC Minutes5-6-97
MAY 6, 1997
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6,
1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington, Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. John
Shepherd, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Tice.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes
of the April 22nd meeting were unanimously approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of four parcels totaling
242.38 acres located on the east side of Route 671 (Ballard's Mill Road). One parcel is
located at the intersection of Route 665 (Millington Road) and three parcels are located
near the intersection of Route 609 (Wesley Chapel Road). The proposed time period is
the same as for the original district, or 10 years from December, 1994. The existing
Moorman's River District contains 10,379 acres. The Commission is required to take
action at this time to accept the applications.
Comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the application for the
addition to the Moorman's River Ag/Forestal District be accepted. The motion passed
unanimously.
Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of two parcels totaling 65.50
acres located on the west side of Route 22 . The proposed time period is the same as for
the original district, or 10 years from September, 1994. The existing Keswick District
contains 6,401 acres. The Commission is required to take action at this time to accept the
applications.
Comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the application for the addition
to the Keswick Ag/Forestal District be accepted. The motion passed unanimously.
SUB-97-014 Kincannon - Request for Waiver from Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Comment was invited. None was offered.
5-6-97
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the request for a waiver
from Section 18-36(f) for SUB 97-014 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SUB 97-028 Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge - Radial Parking and One -Way
Circulation Request
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kurt Gloeckner.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the request for radial
parking and one-way circulation for Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 96-24 - N & S L.L.C. - 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(pt.), on the west
side of Old Lynchburg Road, is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood
5. Deferred from the April 22, 1997 Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request based on
the finding that "this application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, both in terms
of density, zoning designation and a plan of development," and subject to acceptance of
the applicant's proffer.
The main issue discussed by the Commission was the impact of this project on the
Interstate Interchange. There was considerable discussion about the existing traffic levels
"level of service", traffic patterns, how this project will impact the traffic situation in this
area, and ultimate road improvements which may need to take place . Staff answers to
Commission questions included the following-
--The original application included the commercial area. In response to the Virginia
Department of Transportation's comments about traffic on 5th Street, the Interstate
Interchange, and improvements, "the applicant chose to scale back the development."
Those issues will be addressed when a request for the rezoning of the commercial area is
submitted. There has been no change in the proposal for the development of the
residential part of the property, "other than to take it from a planned development
approach to an R-15 approach." "The concept remains the same." Mr. Fritz confirmed
that this proposal provides "less information" in terms of the ultimate development of the
property.
--The level of service for the northbound traffic into the city is presently at a level F.
(A level of service F = 193 second delay for one turning movement.) Southbound would
drop from a D to an F. "However, the traffic study submitted by the applicant lumps this
a:V
5-6-97
3
%bW, development with the Jefferson National Bank Development in terms of future impact to
5th Street, so we can't tell you specifically what this development does to cause the level
of service to drop --whether or not this development alone would cause it to drop from a D
to an F. "Staff is not able to state what the impact of this development alone is. It is the
opinion of staff that the problems associated with the Interstate Interchange are due to
existing or approved development and staff improvement is that the need for
improvements to the Interstate Interchange recommended by VDOT is not substantially
generated by this project alone. Staff opinion is that the County and VDOT should work
together towards improving the level of service at the Interchange. With typical buildout
patterns, it will be the summer of 1998, at the earliest, before additional impact to the
Interchange will be created by occupancy of units in this development.... It is our
recommendation that the poor level of service at the Interstate Interchange is a pre-
existing situation and that this development does not substantially cause a need for
improvements and therefore we are able to recommend approval of this rezoning request."
--Its difficult to compare the traffic from this development with that of JNB, because
the traffic from this development will have a "reverse" a.m./p.m. peak pattern. The "peak -
hour" traffic volume for the bank is 787/vtpd; the traffic volume for this project (full build -
out) is 2, 554/vtpd.
--The limiting factor is not 5th Street, the limiting factor is the Interstate Interchange
ramp. There is no capacity problem with the roads (either 5th Street, of 164). The
intersection with the Interstate is the only issue.
--All urban ramps in the area are approaching --and some have already reached --a
"failure" level of service. There is no evidence that traffic is presently backing up on 164 at
this location.
--A traffic study of the entire acreage was done with the original proposal. VDOT's
original comments were based on that study, and "that led to a scaling back of the
development."
--Even though Mr. Fritz confirmed a plan for the entire property could have been
submitted, with the commercial development being a later phase (after traffic concerns
have been addressed), "it would have been much more complicated and, in my opinion, I
(Mr. Fritz) don't think we're losing anything by breaking it up into two rezonings." He
explained: "It's R2 on the other portion, so it's reasonable to anticipate there will be a
rezoning application at that time. It will, effectively, be treated as a Phase II, and we have
talked with the applicant about not doing anything in Phase I which will jeopardize the
approval of, or cause some hardship in, Phase 11. We can find nothing that is being done
in the residential development which would jeopardize the future development of any
commercial or residential area. So, in essence, that is what we're doing, but we'll be
doing it in two separate applications. It would have been a much more complex rezoning
application with a phasing plan or treating it all as a single plan development at this time.
Allowing the separation to occur, and for the County and VDOT to work toward some
resolution of the Interstate Interchange issue will certainly help at such time as a future
rezoning comes for either of the two commercial areas."
--If a traffic signal at the entrance to the site, on 5th Street Extended, is determined
to be required, it will be installed at the expense of the applicant. It need not be a
condition of this application because "if one is required, it is simply required before VDOT
will approve the site plan."
5-6-97 4
--This development will be subject to the review of the Architectural Review Board.
Staff does not feel there is anything which cannot be addressed during the site plan
review by the ARB and staff feels making any limitations at this time "would bind the
hands of the ARB in the future."
The Chairman asked Mr. Kamptner to explain "the degree to which the Commission can
take into account the traffic impact," based on the staffs comments. Mr. Kamptner
replied: "The ability to consider off -site impacts is rather limited. The problem being that
the enabling legislation does not recognize consideration of off -site impacts, or at least the
reverse of requiring off -site improvements. Generally, impacts can be considered as part
of your legislative determination, but the basis of a denial, we don't think can be based
upon, in this case, the traffic condition. This condition is pre-existing. In working with staff
I think we have agreed that the impacts and the need for improvements are not
substantially generated by this particular project. There is other development which has
gone on in this area--JNB across the street --for which these impacts were not considered
or they weren't addressed, which raises another issue with respect to treating different
parcels differently. The JNB project was approved without looking at this particular impact.
To deny the project, based upon traffic alone, we think would be treating a similarly
situated property differently, recognizing that the Comprehensive Plan does ask that there
be adequate facilities when a property is rezoned, but also considering that we have
rezoned other properties in this area."
Mr. Dotson noted that staffs comments seem to be more related to "who pays for
Interchange improvements, not whether the Interchange is adequate or not and can
support the use. Really what staff is saying is that it would appear not to be fair to require
this applicant to pay. Whether the Interchange is adequate is a different question." Mr.
Kamptner responded: "That's one important factor. As you know the State took over the
maintenance of the roads in the 1930's. The Court has had these issues come up before
and they've said this is the responsibility of the State. It is not the burden of individual
landowners to maintain the roads around them. It is primarily the function of the State to
insure an adequate State system. The Courts have recognized this kind of approach
sometimes leads to a lag in keeping up with the development. But the State has
assumed this role."
Mr. Finley asked if staff had changed their previous recommendation for denial because of
the inability to definitively evaluate the traffic impact from this development. Mr. Fritz
responded: "No, that is not the reason. The reasoning (behind the change in staffs
recommendation) is based on further evaluation of what the existing impact was at the
Interstate Interchange, further consultation with the County Attorney's Office and further
review of the Southern Transportation Study."
Mr. Nitchmann said his only concern is with the large amount of bank traffic. Because of
that traffic he said the exit from this development needs to be studied closely. Mr. Fritz
said the transportation study submitted by the applicant already contemplates a signal at
that intersection. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were future plans for pedestrian access to
the commercial areas. Mr. Fritz said staff is also concerned about this and provisions of
5-6-97 5
the Zoning Ordinance allow for the review of sidewalks and other pedestrian accessways.
The proffer submitted by the applicant "allows us to address all those concerns."
Ms. Huckle said her main concern is the lack of commercial "service" area for the
residents of this development, which means there will be additional traffic on the highways
as these people travel to shopping areas. It was pointed out that there is a large grocery
store and other businesses less than a mile away.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Stan Tatum. He explained how this plan had
developed, based on the applicant's desires and the County's plans for this area.
Additional information and answers to Commission questions were as follows:
--The residential development will be a total of approximately 400 units (with
recreational amenities) and will be done in two phases (200 units/phase). Each phase will
have a 2-year buildout time. "The owner has agreed to stretch that to whatever
reasonable degree to ease impact on the ramps at the Interstate." Assuming good
economic conditions, a minimum of four years is anticipated for completion of the two
phases.
--The type of units has not been definitely decided upon, but something comparable
to Lakeside is being considered.
--Recreational facilities will be "typical," -- a pool, playgrounds, and possibly tennis
courts. (Based on the number of units proposed, Mr. Fritz said the equivalent of 8 or 9 tot
lots will be required, and 5 or 6 equivalent basketball courts, in addition to a passive
recreation area.)
--With the original plan, commercial office -type development was envisioned for the
commercial part of the property. The timing of the commercial development is dependent
on the condition of the economy. (Ms. Huckle noted that commercial development near
the Lakeside development had been strongly supported by the residents of the area.)
--The plan on display is a conceptual plan, but "generally represents the intent."
--There will be no access from the R-15 part of this property to Old Lynchburg
Road. There may ultimately be a connection from the commercial part of the property.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if there are any plans to make some of these units affordable for
"young marrieds" (in the $450-$500 range). The owner of the property, Mr. Heischmann,
answered this question. He said the cost of development and infrastructure will drive the
rents. He felt a minimum rent will be $500/month for a one -bedroom unit. He said the
way to keep the costs low is to increase the density.
In response to Mr. Finley's questions about the number of school -age children which will
reside in this development, Mr. Tatum estimated 24-30 students/building. Staff confirmed
high school age students will attend the new Monticello High School. will
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the item was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said staff and the applicant have answered most of his questions. He said
it is now the County's job to make sure the development occurs in a way that protects the
_2�
5-6-97 6
* ftw future of the surrounding community. He was not concerned about the lack of a
commercial plan at this time. The issues related to commercial development can be
addressed when a rezoning is submitted. He hoped the development of this area will put
more pressure on VDOT to "start looking at this sooner rather than later." He concluded
he could support the request.
Ms. Washington agreed with Mr. Nitchmann.
Mr. Dotson said he liked the applicant's original proposal more than this "piecemeal
approach." He said the first proposal was closer "to what we meant when we said a
transitional area with mixed use." He felt a plan for the entire property would have been
better, with the phasing being tied to the service level of the Interchange. He said he is
somewhat concerned about precedent because this is the first significant transition -area
rezoning. "Even though we said in the Plan that an overall plan should be submitted, we
are willing to accept piecemeal. I think of the property on Hydraulic Road and some of the
concerns there and I would like to see these areas proposed in tact. It is a dilemma. I
like the applicant's thinking; I like the proposal; but this would put us in a position of
piecemeal development. I also think it is important that we get the land use right and then
figure out the traffic problem because I don't think the community is going to be in a
position much longer where we can have the low levels of traffic we have had thus far in a
lot of different areas. We need to figure out ways to live with traffic and one of the ways
is to get the land uses right. I think the overall concept the applicant has is the way to get
the land uses right.... As I look at the site plan --and I understand the proffer that the
whole residential will come in at once --I am not sure that covers all the issues. For
instance, if I imagine this is the site plan, then to go from those apartments to the
commercial, you're going to have to go out on 5th Street."
Mr. Fritz addressed this concern saying: "That's one of the advantages of getting it to
cover the whole area. There is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance which allows us to
require access be provided to adjoining properties. So we will be able to address that.
One of the other components of the Zoning Ordinance is to attempt to get two points of
access whenever you have 50 units or more. So it is theoretical there would be two
points of access. One would be through what is proposed ultimately to be the commercial
area either to Old Lynchburg, or back out to 5th Street. So that can be addressed very
easily through the site plan review process."
Mr. Dotson, after hearing Mr. Fritz's comments, concluded: "So a reasonable expectation
is you would require access from the red area to the blue area for pedestrian and
vehicular. So in that sense it would be dealt with as one overall plan." He said the
knowledge of this connection helped his dilemma with this proposal.
Ms. Huckle asked if requiring the access described by Mr. Dotson should be a condition.
Mr. Fritz said "it will be done as a matter of course during site review." He added that
items should as sidewalks, recreation areas, etc. (which are not shown on this plan) are all
�`""' site plan issues. He said the site plan will be reviewed under the administrative review
process and can be brought before the Commission if a Commissioner calls it up.
,;24
5-6-97 7
Mr. Finley said he had not been prepared to vote when this item had been previously
scheduled, but with Mr. Fritz's memo and after having heard tonight's discussion, he said
he was now ready to vote.
Ms. Huckle asked when a second point of access will have to be provided. Mr. Fritz
replied: "It does not have to wait until the commercial development takes place. They
could bring a second point of access through what is now R-2 property to serve R-15
property. There is no provision in the Ordinance which would prohibit that." Ms. Huckle
asked if that should be a condition. Mr. Fritz said: "We can require it as part of the site
review process." Ms. Huckle felt this should be "number one on staffs list."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 96-24 for N&S,
L.L.C., be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of
the applicant's proffer.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Nitchmann said he hoped the applicant will consider making at least a small
percentage of these units affordable to young adults just getting started (e.g., teachers,
firemen, policemen, etc.).
Mr. Loewenstein expressed the hope that the County and VDOT will move very quickly to
*0.1 resolve the traffic problems.
SP 97-7 James W & Edith M. Love - Request for a special use permit to display vehicles
for sale, on a parcel currently used for a mobile radio installation and repair business
located on the west side of Avon Street Extended, north of Interstate 64.
AND
Site Plan Waiver Request for James W. & Edith M. Love - Request to waive the site plan
requirement for a proposed used car sales display, on a parcel currently used for a mobile
radio installation and repair business.
The staff was requesting deferral to May 27 to allow receipt of ARB comment.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-7 for James W.
and Edith M. Love and a Site Plan Waiver Request for James W. and Edith M. Love be
deferred to May 27, 1997.
There being no further business, the meetin djourned at 8:25 p.m.
(I'd L �,,
V. Wayne ilimberg, ySecre�a
DB � J