Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 03 1997 PC Minutes6-3-97 JUNE 3, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 3, 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. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr.Eric Mordsette, Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. SP 97-16 St. Paul's Church - Proposal to amend the current special use permit for St. Paul's Church (SP 96-54) to expand the facilities with a two story addition to the existing church on 15.315 acres zoned VR Village Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 58A2, Parcels 17, 18 and 19 (combined), is located on the east side of State Route 678 (Owensville Road) at Ivy in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is not located in a Development Area. The applicant was requesting deferral to June 10, 1997. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Dotson seconded that SP 97-16 for St. Paul's Church be deferred to June 10, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-10 Sunnyboy Gardens - Proposal to establish a farm sales on 2 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 23, part thereof, is located on the southwest side of State Route 743 (Earlysville Road) near Earlysville in the Rio Magisterial District. This property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is not located in a Development Area. The applicant was requesting deferral to June 24, 1997. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-10 for Sunnyboy Gardens be deferred to June 24, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-09 First Baptist Church, Covesville - Proposal to add 1.0 acre, zoned Rural Areas, to the existing cemetery. This property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcels 6 1 6-3-97 2 (part of) and Tax Map 109, Parcel 6E, is located on the south side of Route 805, approximately 0.25 mile west of Route 29. This property is not located in a designated growth area and is in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. The applicant was represented by Vasell Smith. He said church representatives have met with the adjoining property owners and have reached agreement as to how far the church will extend the cemetery. There is no plan to use the property within the next five years because the existing cemetery can continue to meet needs for that time period. The majority of the mature vegetation will remain. The expansion will meet the needs of the church for 50 to 60 years. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this property is in his district and he received no negative comments from the public. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-09 for the First Baptist Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. All grave sites shall be located 100 feet or more from any well. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-12 Myers Family Division - Request for an additional development right [10.5.21 on 31.83 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as tax Map 47, Parcel 32C, is located on a private access easement off the south side of Route 784 (Burnt Mill Road) approximately 3/4 mile west of its intersection with Route 600 (Watts Passage) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Shepherd confirmed that if the way the property was subdivided by the family was ignored, then the 54 acre parcel could have yielded five 2-acre lots, and two additional larger lots, for a total of seven. Mr. Tice questioned the use of the term major stream valley in condition No. 2. He thought it would be clearer to use the term "floodplain." Mr. Shepherd agreed. Referring to "favorable factor" No. 2 in the staff report --The site is not in a water supply watershed. --Mr. Tice pointed out that this statement refers to an Albemarle �1/ 6-3-97 County watershed only, because the Rivanna River is a water supply watershed for Lake Monticello and other users downstream. The applicant, Mr. Hamilton Myers, addressed the Commission. He said he has two younger children still at home who, up to this point, have said they do not want to live on the property. He said he operates a home -based plumbing business but no business activity takes place on the property. He said he has experiences some problem with one of his wells, so he switches back and forth between two wells. He was not aware of any other well or septic problems on the property. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson pointed out that if this parcel been divided differently, it would have been possible to achieve seven development rights as the applicant has requested without any special action required. For that reason, he said he could support the request but he would not look favorably on further divisions for additional children because that would go beyond the seven development rights the owner could have originally had. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-12 for the Myers Family Division, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The parcel authorized to be created as a result of this special use permit must qualify as a family division. 2. The parcel authorized to be created as a result of this special use permit shall not encroach into the floodplain of the North Fork Rivanna River. 3. No building permit for an additional dwelling shall be issued until the plat has been recorded. [NOTE: The wording of the conditions as they appeared in the staff report were amended as stated above by Mr. Kamptner.] Discussion: Though she sympathized with the applicant's desire to treat his children equally, Ms. Huckle expressed a concern that approval of this request could set a precedent. She said it does not meet the provisions of the Ordinance and even though this is just one more division there are other children who may change their minds and want to live on the property also. Referring to the well problem described by the applicant, she said additional wells could have a negative impact on existing wells. She noted also that some expensive changes to the road may be required by VDOT. She concluded: "Balancing the good and the bad, I think this is a dangerous precedent to set." Mr. Nitchmann said he was not concerned about precedent because there are so few requests for family divisions. He felt it was important to support families and in this case, seven development rights would have been possible if the applicant had purchased all the property at the same time. -11-5-- 6-3-97 4 Mr. Loewenstein also had concerns about precedent and the fact that the site is in an l� agricultural forestal area. However, because the total division rights will be seven, which would have been available by -right when the property was purchased, and because this is a family division, he said he could, "on balance," support the request. He agreed with Mr. Dotson that he would be concerned about any additional requests for division of this property. The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. ZMA 97-01 Still Meadows - Proposal to rezone approximately 142 acres from R-1, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential development with a maximum of 155 lots. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 21 and Tax Map 45132, Parcel 2 (part) and 4 (part) is located at the end of Northfields Road. Access is proposed to both Northfields Road and Carrsbrook Drive. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request. Commission comments about the staff report, and staff answers to Commission questions were as follows: --The school impact figures were based on multipliers found in the "old" Fiscal Impact Model and reflect only the impact created by the increased density which is above the by -right units --an additional 49 units (106 units by -right vs. 155 units proposed). Mr. Tice asked why the fiscal impact analysis had not taken into accont all fiscal impacts, and not just those addressed through the CIP. Mr. Fritz said the Board had directed staff to identify those things contained in the CIP and Six -Year Secondary Road Plan. Staff does not have the ability, with the current Fiscal Impact Model, to consider factors such as revenues. Ms. Huckle said Mr. Tice had raised an important point because the total impact of operating the schools is much more than CIP costs. Mr. Loewenstein added that if the numbers had been based on the new Fiscal Impact Model (not yet adopted), the figures would be much higher. --Mr. Tice addressed staffs statement that "no matters of public health and safety would be effected by an increase in the density of the development." He asked for more information on how the Engineering staff had reviewed the request for a waiver of stormwater detention requirements. He pointed out that the applicant's engineer has stated that because the property drains to the Rivanna River, stormwater detention is not a significant factor. Mr. Kelsey explained: "An idea for a waiver, mostly along these larger streams, is that their peak flow is able to get into the river and pass through downstream prior to the peak flow developing in the larger stream. That is why we tend to support these waivers along these larger streams." --Ms. Huckle asked what measures are used to protect water quality in the runoff that drains to the river. Mr. Kelsey said a variety of measures may be used to mitigate water quality, e.g. vegetative filter strips, infiltration, or typical stormwater management facilities such as ponds or dry basins. Staff has not yet made any recommendations for this proposal other than to have identified some potential areas it 6 6-3-97 5 that could be used for possible water quality facilities. Those measures will be required "only if it is included as part of the approval of the stormwater detention waiver." Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be placed on the approval. Mr. Fritz called attention to Attachment G of the staff report which addresses the detention waiver and the items the Engineering Department will be looking at if that waiver is granted, which include water quality management. (Mr. Cilimberg explained that conditions cannot be attached to a rezoning, but can be attached to the waiver.) Mr. Loewenstein said if there is a good reason to waive the stormwater detention requirements "a very thorough, informative statement should be included in the record of approval so this record of approval can be distinguished from other similar requests for the future." Mr. Cilimberg suggested a reference to Attachment G attached to an approval action would cover the items recommended by the Engineering Department and noted by Ms. Huckle. --Mr. Dotson asked if there are any ponds proposed within the developed portion of the site. Mr. Kelsey said a couple of locations have been identified as potential stormwater detention areas. He guessed these would be some type of dry basin. --Staff confirmed the applicant has not offered any proffers dealing with water quality. Mr. Fritz said such a proffer is premature until the final location of roads, the general layout and the location of stormwater detention facilities have been decided. Mr. Tice said he thought it would be very appropriate for the applicant to offer a proffer related to "conceptually how he would deal with stormwater on the property." --Mr. Tice, referring to a statement in the Comp Plan under General Land Use .... Standards which says to "maintain existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions," said he found staffs position that buffering between similar uses is not required "curious." He said he did not agree that buffers are intended to be only between different uses. Mr. Fritz again repeated staffs position in this case, and in others, that "buffering is appropriate between dissimilar uses." Mr.Fritz also said that requiring buffering would likely reduce the density even further. Mr.Fritz pointed out on the plan some open space areas which will essentially serve as buffers. --Regarding staffs determination that the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Brook and Rio Road is not "substantially generated" by this development and therefore cost share cannot be required, Mr. Tice asked staff to explain the criteria by which this determination is made." Mr. Tice thought a 20% increase in traffic is significant. Mr. Fritz replied: "In terms of substantially creating the need," e.g. if this development were to cause the level of service at the intersection to move from a level C to a level F, that would be a clear case that this development was substantially generating the need for the signal. But if the intersection is already at a level F and the need for the signal already exists whether this development occurs or not, that is a case where the development does not substantially generate the need. Referring to comments made by VDOT related to delays at the intersection, Mr. Dotson pointed out that this development could increase delays three -fold. He felt this is another factor which should be considered in terms of significant impact. Mr. Loewenstein asked the County Attorney to comment on the County's ability to accept proffers for off site improvements. He said the tone of the staff report seems to be that the County cannot accept or encourage such proffers unless the need is generated by the application under review. Mr. Kamptner replied: 47 6-3-97 6 "We can always accept voluntary proffers to address an off -site situation. There does need to be a connection between the proffer and some impact of the particular rezoning application that the proffer is intended to address." --Mr. Finley asked what barriers will be used between the development and adjacent property during the construction process. He was concerned about childrens' safety, noise, etc. Mr. Kelsey said there are no requirements for the construction of a physical barrier between adjacent property and a construction site. The Erosion Control requirements will require silt fences and dust control measures. Applicant comment was invited. Mr. Scott Williams addressed the Commission and described the proposed development in detail. Additional information not covered in the staff report, and answers to Commission questions included the following: --A traffic study performed by Wilbur -Smith Associates (reviewed by staff and VDOT) demonstrates that the intersections can handle the traffic without creating inappropriate levels of service. Some of the turning movements already have a failing rating, but it is not the result of this proposal. --The project meets the demands of the new -home market by providing homes in the $225,000 to $325,000 price range. The project utilizes land in a growth area. --The request for a waiver of critical slopes provisions is not for those slopes in the open space plan areas, but rather is for smaller bands within the property, many of which are man-made. The waiver does not provide for additional lots but it provides for better use of the property. --This development uses existing public utilities without overloading them. --The lots which back up to the Northfields homes are designed deeper than other lots in the subdivision so as to create a buffer. The existing sewer line on the back of the property hampers the design somewhat. A wooded buffer area will remain in almost all of those yards. --There will be two access points to the Rivanna Greenway, both pedestrian paths. One will be private --for the use of the residents of this development; the other will be available for public use. There are no plans for vehicular access to the Greenway. --Pedestrian walkways are proposed. An asphalt pathway is offered in the proffers. --Tree protection measurers, beyond those associated with the critical slopes, are envisioned. Clearing will require the approval of the Homeowners' Association. Clearing will be limited to "a site for the house and a site for the yard and what is left will remain wooded." Mr. Williams said he believes that will include a significant portion of the back lots adjacent to Northfields. He said he was uncomfortable proffering a certain width of buffer because final sewer and road plans have not been completed. He said, however, that he was willing to proffer that "our documents will read to the effect that clearing will need to be approved by the Association or a designated agent of the Association and will be limited to what is necessary for a house site. It will not be full scale clearing. [Later in the meeting Mr. Williams did express a willingness to proffer a 50 foot buffer along the Northfields property line (the 50 feet to include the sewer easement).] V 6-3-97 7 --Regarding the rearrangement of lots to reduce impact to the Carrsbrook pond, Mr. Williams said he responded to that Engineering Staff comment by "noting that when we get to final sewer plans we will put that as high as they let us. Our preference would be to stay off that slope entirely, but that would require a lift station which the Service Authority will not approve if gravity flow service is possible. --The decision to request a density which is less than what is recommended in the Comp Plan was based entirely on the consideration of the impact on the adjacent developments. --This proposal was developed by the applicant over by -right development because of the belief that 49 additional units would not change the character of the area and, given the high cost of in -fill property, the additional units make the project easier to build. The density of this proposal is 2.2 dwelling units/acre which is comparable to Westmoreland (2.7) and Raintree (2.2). Carrsbrook is 1-1.6 and Northfields is 1.4. --Total buildout is envisioned to take 4 1/2 to 5 years and will be done in three phases. It is hoped the recreation facilities can be built in the first phase, but, if not, they will be built in the second phase. --The applicant recognizes that this development will contribute additional traffic to the road, but the traffic problems already exist. Mr. Williams indicated he was not willing to proffer that he would share the cost of a traffic signal. He said: "I worry that if we agree to participate in the cost of that light, that we may be agreeing to something that they may never do. I don't feel we're causing the need for a traffic light and that is why we are reluctant to agree to pay for a portion." He said the applicant has agreed to pay for the striping of the intersection at Carrsbrook and Westmoreland and has also agreed to add turn lanes on Carrsbrook and Westmoreland for this development's entrance. --The floodplain area will be open space and will be available for recreation. It is not so designated on this plan because of the applicant's desire to first determine the wishes of the residents. Mr. Dotson asked how closely the County has studied the options for how to handle this particular open space, particularly the 50 acres of floodplain, e.g. County ownership vs. homeowner association ownership vs. continued farm use. Mr. Fritz said agricultural use is a non -conforming use at present because this is a PRD in a growth area. He did not know if the current cattle operation would be able to continue. That would be a ruling for the Zoning Administrator to make. Mr. Dotson asked: "Can that be addressed in the PRD? That doesn't seem like a good thing to preclude." Mr. Fritz said the possibility of County ownership was considered, but there are no County documents at present which express an interest in the ownership of this property. Parks and Recreation is aware of the Greenway issue, but has expressed no other interest in the property. Referring to the Engineering Department's comment in Attachment G that "provided the plan is revised to reduce disturbance of the slopes bordering the Rivanna River and Carrsbrook Pond... then the Engineering Department will recommend approval of the waiver to allow development on critical slopes," Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kelsey if the 6-3-97 8 plan has been revised to his satisfaction. Mr. Kelsey said it appeared some of the lot lines have been redrawn and he is satisfied with what he has seen thus far. The meeting recessed from 9:10 to 9:30. Public comment was invited. Speakers were limited to 3 minutes. The following residents of the Northfields, Westmoreland, Raintree, and Carrsbrook neighborhoods spoke in opposition to the development: Robert Von Aiken; Robert Moranto; Joan Von Aiken; Don Lederman; Abby Bishop; Donald Lyon (President of the Raintree Homeowners' Association); Charles Tractor (Woodbrook Homeowners' Association); Wayne Elliott (representing Northfields); Frank Rice (Carrsbrook Homeowners' Association); Henry Harper; Lois Rodchester; Alyson Cryer; Roy Scuttermore; John Loyt; Douglas Hudson; Elaine Bunch; Don Swafford; Lewis Leake; Karen Brown; John Mayo; and Heinz Porsce. Their reasons for opposition were: --Increased traffic on already dangerous roads. Traffic will increase 60% and will greatly exacerbate already existing problems with intersections at Rt. 29 and at Rio Road. --Increased traffic creates danger for neighborhood children. --Schools cannot accommodate the increased population. This development would result in the need for 3.5 additional classrooms. --The density is too much in excess of what could be done by -right. --Threat to existing wetlands on the property. --Residents in adjoining neighborhoods bought their properties with the understanding this property would develop at R-1 densities. They are prepared to accept R-1 development. Citizens have the right to depend on the ordinances for protection. --This proposal has no merits on its own. There should be a "compelling" reason to rezone property. It should not be at the whim of the developer. The developer purchased the property knowing the existing zoning. He should "live with it." --This developer does not have a good reputation. --The Comp Plan's recommendations should not be treated as law. --The buffer which is proposed is inadequate. --This plan lacks sufficient detail for the Commission to make a decision at this time. Many of the developer's answers to Commission questions were "evasive." --Action on this request should wait until the Fiscal Impact Model is available. --This rezoning will create a subdivision "which will dump into a subdivision, which will dump into another subdivision." --Negative impact on the floodplain. --Additional burden on emergency services. --Unknown impact on the water supply. Mr. Moranto presented a petition of opposition which he described as being signed by all homeowners on Carrsbrook Drive and Northfields Road which adjoin this property. 50 6-3-97 9 Ms. Von Aiken presented another petition of opposition which she described as being signed by all the remaining residents of Carrsbrook Drive. Many of those who spoke said they would have no opposition to the property's development as it is currently zoned, with 106 dwelling units. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The applicant was allowed final comment. Mr. Williams said he was prepared to proffer a 30 foot wooded, natural buffer --measured from the outside of the sewer easement --between lots backing up to Northfields Drive. He said any trees which might be lost during grading would be replanted. It was noted that the lots adjoining Carrsbrook Drive may not have room for a buffer of this same size. Mr. Fritz read his understanding of the applicant's proffer: "50 feet from the Northfields property and from property fronting on Carrsbrook as undisturbed buffers except for sewer laterals or other utilities. This buffer includes and is not in addition to any existing sewer easement. This buffer may be modified in accord with the provisions of Section 8.5.6.3 provided that a substantial vegetative buffer is maintained, replaced or established." Mr. Kamptner listed the following options for Commission action: --Deferral if it is believed important information is missing. The Commission must act within 90 days of the time the application is first referred to the Commission. That 90-day period is "getting close." --Can approve with recommended changes to the application plan. --Can approve with no recommended changes to the application plan. --Can approve with acceptance of the proffers, rejection of the proffers or the recommendation that certain proffers be clarified. --Can recommend denial, with reasons cited for the Board's benefit. Reasons on which a denial can be based are: (1) That the current zoning offers reasonable use of the property; (2) The proposal is inconsistent with the Comp Plan, recognizing that probably the most glaring inconsistency is the density is lower than what is recommended in the Comp Plan;" (3) Other concerns about the aesthetic aspects of the proposal, off -site traffic or other concerns that may effect health and safety; (Referring to the increased traffic, Mr. Kamptner said the County struggles with off -site impacts and is very limited in how it can address these concerns.) (4) Insufficient information from the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee. (Mr. Kamptner noted that the Board must take action within 12 months of the date of the application (2/24/97) and it is anticipated the Development Areas study will last one year and it has not yet begun. He informed the Commission that a moratorium cannot be imposed just because a study is underway. The Board must act within the 12-month period.) -6/ 6-3-97 10 Mr. Tice reported on the status of the Development Areas Initiative Committee and related some of the background behind the county's in -fill policy. He said: "Just as much as there is a concern about trying to protect the rural areas, there is also a concern to try to make existing communities more sustainable and livable. " He said it is recognized there are conflicts with the in -fill policy and trying to figure out in which direction the citizens of the county want to move is a real dilemma for staff. It is because of these conflicts and this dilemma that the Board established the Development Areas Initiative Committee and authorized the hiring of a consultant for advice. This process has just started and the consultant has not yet been acquired, but the Committee has established that it does not feel one of its roles is to comment on development proposals or other applications and, therefore, he hoped the Commission would not seek comment from the Committee about this proposal. Mr. Tice said much has been made of the fact that the Comp Plan calls for this area to be 3-6 dwelling units/acre. He said he feels that looking at just the density component of the Comp Plan, in isolation from the rest of the goals and objectives, is an often -made mistake. He said he did not think anyone who supports the densities in the Comp Plan and the in -fill policy "had the idea those densities would be allowed in those areas if it would sacrifice other things which are important to the community in terms of schools, traffic, water quality, environmental issues, etc." Referring to the Land Use section of the Comp Plan, he pointed out that it calls for "maintaining existed forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions." It also says "development should be concentrated and clustered to the maximum extent possible �..• to protect the environmental features, scenic vistas, historic sites, provide for open space, minimize traffic hazards, conflict with other land uses...." He concluded: "I am not entirely convinced this (proposal) is consistent with that if you consider it has been clustered but the remainder of the land wasn't developable anyway." He quoted again from the Land Use section: "New development or major redevelopment design plans should include features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality." He said, other than the Engineering Department's recommendations for BMP's, not much has been offered from the applicant on this issue. No proffers dealing with water quality have been offered. He said he has a lot of concerns about the stormwater aspects of this plan. Mr. Tice said he has visited the site and its agricultural use has had a significant negative impact so there is the opportunity for a development project to result in less polluted loading of the runoff than what is occurring from the agricultural operation, but that has not been demonstrated. He questioned how the fiscal impact analysis had been done. He said fiscal impact should reflect the total costs and not just the current CIP improvements. Under "Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses" the Comp Plan says "unless contrary to matters of public health and safety residential rezoning at the upper end of Comprehensive Plan's recommended densities should be favored. He said: "I would maintain that the potential water quality stormwater impacts as well as the traffic impacts --I think an 18% or 19% increase is significant --makes me unconvinced that the plan before us has met that part of the Comp Plan." Under "Residential Development Design," it says "residential development should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl." He said: "I'm not sure what we're seeing is not the 6-3-97 11 same continuous pattern we've had." Having cited all these parts of the Land Use section of the Comp Plan, Mr. Tice concluded: "It's not just a simple matter of saying the Comp Plan calls for 3-6 units per acre. We need to take the goals and objectives of the entire Plan into consideration, and what the people of this County have said they want in terms of the development. They want us to look at opportunities to increase density, but with the objective of creating livable, sustainable communities. think the plan and proffers that have been offered to us are not consistent with that." Mr. Nitchmann said he agreed with Mr. Tice's assessment of this request and also with Mr. Tice's description of the difficult job staff has in evaluating these proposals. He said: "My opinion is that no matter what the Committee comes up with in a year ... the same neighbors are going to be here with the same reasons for opposition. The interesting thing about this request is, for once, we have a group of citizens saying we realize this land is going to be developed.... We're glad it hasn't yet been developed, but now the time has come. They're willing to accept that burden if it is at R-1 but they don't want to be asked to accept 50% more houses, people and traffic." On the question of off -site traffic problems, he indicated he felt the applicant should offer to share in the cost of a traffic signal, given the fact that this development would add much more traffic to the intersections. He said he did not think a deferral would accomplish anything. He said he could support a denial based on safety concerns. Ms. Huckle said she agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. She suggested the applicant could re -submit the request after the Development Area Initiatives Committee has made its recommendations. She said she supported the concept of in -fill "but future in -fill projects should depend on the topography and the traffic patterns." She said this site, because of the critical slopes and the floodplain, has quite a few handicaps, and it is also very handicapped by a traffic pattern which goes through other neighborhoods. She said this should be kept in mind for other in -fill projects. Mr. Dotson, who, along with Mr. Tice, is a member of the Development Area Initiatives Committee, said he believes all the issues which have been raised tonight will be discussed by the Committee because they are going to come up on any site in any neighborhood. No neighborhood is going to feel that its streets aren't already too heavily travelled and that there aren't already issues of safety. He expressed the following concerns about this proposal: --Is it fair or reasonable to expect a homeowners' association to manage 50 acres of open space? The County needs to look into this question to identify options that might be available. --It would be helpful to know when VDOT plans to install traffic signals. --On the issue of tree preservation, he said "as we develop in -fill sites, the existing trees are going to become more and more important to maintaining the aesthetics, but the County does not presently have an adequate way to address this." He said a PRD probably offers more opportunities than the developer has offered. He concluded that he did not yet know how he would vote because he could see advantages both ways. 6c� 6-3-97 12 Mr. Finley said, historically, denials have often been based on inconsistency with the Comp Plan. In this case, however, the Comp Plan recommends greater density, which would result in even more traffic, so, "in this case, it seems like the Comprehensive Plan is just out of it." The decision will have to be based on Land Use and impact on existing neighborhoods. Mr. Kamptner said he hoped he had not given too much weight to the density issue when citing inconsistencies with the Comp Plan. He pointed out that Commissioner Tice had identified what he considered to be several other inconsistences. Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with Commissioner Tice's comments. He said he believes there is reasonable use of the property with its present zoning and there are safety concerns with the increased traffic. He said it is unfortunate the Development Areas Initiatives Study is not farther along to address some of the concerns identified. He said he feels in the past the County has sometimes reviewed new projects "in something of a vacuum, rather than looking at its relationship to the community as a whole." "We have often made incremental decisions rather than aggregate ones. We tend to view each project on its own merit and only when we have reviewed enough of these that the potential combined impact becomes apparent will we wake up and say 'O.K., that's enough.' It seems to me this application brings into clear focus, at least for me, the time has come, and may be overdue, to think carefully about how every application of any significant substance needs to be held up against the total planning picture as a whole before it is taken further in the process. Holistic planning, which is a term I prefer to sustainability, would go a long way towards clarifying the potential impacts of substantive projects such as this one upon the community that are not immediately evident otherwise. I think with that clearer focus better planning decisions can be made, ones that will benefit all of Albemarle's citizens rather than a few individuals and groups." MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that ZMA 97-01 for Still Meadows be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on the determination that the existing zoning is a reasonable use of the property and that the proposal does not adequately resolve concerns of public health and safety and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as enumerated above. Discussion: Mr. Finley commended staff for their analysis of this proposal. Mr. Loewenstein agreed. The motion for denial passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner about the status of his research into the use of ``r-r eminent domain for securing Greenway property. Mr. Kamptner said he is preparing a memo on this topic which the Commission will receive on June 24th. Also addressed SY 6-3-97 13 in that memo will be the issue of whether or not the County can require proof of water quantity. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. W.