Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 14 1997 PC Minutes10-14-97 OCTOBER 14, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 14, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Washington and Nitchmann. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. The minutes of September 30, 1997, were unanimously approved as amended. [NOTE: Because of equipment failure, this transcription is taken entirely from the Recording Secretary's notes. The tape for this meeting is totally indecipherable. The staffs report, along with the applicant's justification for the request are attached to these minutes.] CONSENT AGENDA Branchlands Professional Center Final Site Plan - Request for an extension of final approval to allow for construction of two office buildings consisting of a total of 15,000 square feet on a 1.88 acre site zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. No concerns about this request were identified by the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the request for an extension of final approval of the Branchlands Professional Center Final Site Plan be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 97-079 Rougemont Farm Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to establish a fourth dwelling on a parcel containing approximately 419.67 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 49, Parcel 17, is located on the west side of Gordonsville Road (State Route 231)in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant was requesting deferral to October 28th. g v 10-14-97 The applicant was present but offered no comment. The public hearing was opened. No public comment was offered. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Rougemont Farm Site Plan Waiver Request be deferred to October 28th. The motion passed unanimously. CPA 97-03 Hidden Hills LLC - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the Crozet Development Area to include land located east of Half Mile Branch Road (Route 684) and north of Hillsboro Lane (Route 797) in the Yancey Mills area. The proposal is to change the designation of the area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). The area includes approximately 163 acres. This area is in the White Hall Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. This was not a public hearing item so public comment was not invited at this time. Those present were advised to contact the Planning Department if they wish to be notified when the public hearing date is set for this request. No action was required of the Commission. CPA 97-01 Mechums River Land Trust - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Crozet Development Area to include land east of Lickinghole Basin and west of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection at Mechums River. The proposal is to change the designation of the area from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre). The area requested for review by the applicant includes approximately 60 acres. The entire area east of the Lickinghole Basin and west of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection at Mechums River consists of approximately 170 acres. This area is in the White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request. The report stated: "Based on the analysis of developable land remaining within the Crozet Community, a large area of undeveloped land has been designated for residential use. Any expansion of the Development Areas would be inconsistent with the Board's action with the adoption of the Land Use Plan in June 1996. Any approval of a plan amendment which increases the size of a development area prior to the completion of the work of the Development Areas Initiatives Study and review of the Rural Areas development policy would appear to be premature. The roadways that serve Crozet (Routes 240 and 250) are currently above their design capacity. In the future these roads will have to accommodate traffic generated from development of the existing Development Area. Expansion along these roads will further exacerbate the problem. Based on the location of this site within the reservoir watershed and outside of the ';�3a 10-14-97 drainage area of the Lickinghole Basin and the ongoing work of the Development Areas Initiatives Study, staff recommends denial of this application to amend the Crozet development area. ... Staff opinion is that this request is not consistent with the Growth Management Policy of the Comprehensive Plan to limit development within the water supply watershed. Further, it is not consistent with a prior Board decision not to expand the Development Areas until further analysis of the methods of developing the Development Areas was completed. Any decision to modify development area boundaries should be delayed until the work of the Development Areas Initiatives Study and review of the Rural Areas is completed. Staff opinion is that CPA 97-01 should be denied." Mr. Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, answered questions about maintenance of detention facilities in this type of development. He said the County does not inspect them on a regular basis, but will follow up if complaints are received or if problems occur. A maintenance agreement will be required and it is usually the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association to maintain these facilities. Mr. Kamptner confirmed that if the responsible party does not take care of the facilities as set forth in the agreement, the County can do whatever is necessary to see that they are maintained. Mr. Finley asked the Water Resources Manager to comment on the effectiveness of an on -site detention basin, vs. a larger regional off -site basin. Mr. Hirschman confirmed that a smaller on -site basin can be more effective in controlling runoff from a particular piece of property because it can contain most of the water washing off that smaller area. A regional basin will allow some water to "get through" and is harder to control. Staff answered other Commission questions about traffic, about the differences between this request and a previous request for Corey Farms, and about potential by - right development of this 57 acres. (Staff said the property could be developed into 7 by -right lots.) The applicant was represented by Mr. David Pettit. He emphasized that the applicant's request is to rezone 57 acres, not 170 acres, as reviewed by the staff. (Some Commissioners were confused about these two figures, as were some members of the public. Several times during the meeting it was explained that staffs review covered 170 acres because the Board of Supervisors had directed that the entire area east of the Lickinghole Basin and west of the Route 240-250 intersection at Mechums River be considered in staffs analysis.) Other comments included: --These acres will be developed into 101 lots, 47 of which can already be developed because they are on the adjacent Highlands property which already has the appropriate zoning. --Reasons to include this property in the Crozet growth area are: (1) It is immediately adjacent to the Highlands development and will be very compatible with ,%4w that development; (2) It will localize more dense development rather than spreading it 0?.3 3 cm 10-14-97 4 out over other parts of the county; (3) It will provide a second access in and out of Highlands; (4) This parcel shares the same natural boundaries as the rest of the Crozet growth area; (5) The property is served by public water and sewer and is close to schools; (6) The property is close to town amenities; and (7) There are many by - right uses for the property would create the same runoff concerns. An agricultural use would have no restrictions and could create more harmful runoff. Public comment was invited. The following persons expressed opposition to the proposal. (Unless otherwise noted, most of those who spoke were Crozet citizens.) Barry Schnore; Jody Webber (Earlysville Area Residents' League); JoAnne Stanley; Katie Hobbs (League of Women Voters - Her statement is attached to this record as Attachment A); Cindy Perry (Albemarle Neighborhood Association); Charles Tracta; Ellen Waff; Marcia Joseph (Southwest Mountains Coalition); Cheryl Duke (Attachment B); Rose Emory (Piedmont Environmental Council - Attachment C); Mr. Pickford; Scott Peyton (Scenic 250); David King; Tom Olivier (Citizens for Albemarle - Attachment D); Tom Loach; John Marston; and Deane Schnore. Their reasons for opposition included the following: --There is already enough residentially zoned land available for development in the Crozet growth area (almost 800 acres). There is no compelling reason to expand the growth area. --This change would set an undesirable precedent and could add similar development pressure to other county villages. --The boundaries for the growth area must remain firm. --A regional detention system is easier for the County to monitor and maintain. --This property lies within a water supply watershed, but lies outside of the area covered by the Lickinghole Basin. --This request is purely that of a land speculator wanting to make money at the county's expense. --This request is a "direct assault on the rural areas." --County taxpayers are already paying for the Lickinghole Basin and it should be used as was intended. --Additional traffic will cause additional strain on already inadequate roadways and will also stretch the limits of police and emergencies services. --The development will cause additional pressure on all infrastructure. --The Comp Plan is the foundation for the County's land use planning policies and must be followed. [NOTE: Most of those present at the meeting expressed their support for Mr. Peyton's statements of opposition by a show of hands. The meeting room was at "standing room only" capacity.] ;3V 10-14-97 5 No public support was expressed for the request. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson identified the following issues which he found to be important: --The choice is not one of development of this site or the rural area, but rather this site or other development area in Crozet. --This site is at far removed from the Crozet downtown business area; it is much closer to the new businesses along Rt. 250. --Lickinghole Creek is not new to the applicant. The applicant knew development of this property would be controversial. --Denial of this request would not deny this property owner anything that has been granted to other developers. --There is reasonable by -right use of the 57 acres available to the applicant. Mr. Dotson concluded that he could not support the request. Mr. Finley said he did not feel this development would be detrimental to the reservoir, given the fact that the Water Resources Manager believes on -site detention basins can be more effective in controlling runoff than regional basins. He said he believes the main issue is the strong neighborhood opposition which has been expressed. He raised the question, however, of what will happen if infill does not occur on the '..- property which is already designated for development. Staff said the Development Areas Initiative Committee is studying that question now. [NOTE: The following two Commissioner statements are included here verbatim because the Secretary was provided with a written copy of the statements.] Ms. Huckle made the following statement: "The Board determined that any development area boundary modification shall only be considered (1) After work of the Development Areas Initiative Study and the review of the Rural Areas is complete; and (2) After greater in -fill development efforts have been made. There is already sufficient area available for development in Crozet and schools are already impacted by the present growth which is occurring. This is deja vu. It has already been determined, several times, it is not in the best interest of the county to allow development of land not in the Lickinghole Basin drainage area. Development would contribute more silt and contaminants into the Rivanna Reservoir." Mr. Loewenstein made the following statement: "I have carefully considered each of the points relating to the applicant's proposal, and I am concerned about several pertinent matters. I do not believe that this application is consistent with the Growth Management Policy of the Comprehensive Plan, which seeks, among other things, to restrict growth within the County's critically important watershed areas. It is also quite Ow,,, clear to me that the negative impacts of additional traffic in an already overloaded cm 10-14-97 6 transportation network in that area, together with increased pressures on schools, police protection, and other County services, would be intolerable, not only for the new residents that another planned community would create, but also for the citizens of the Crozet area who already live there. What I find most significant about this application, however, is its timing. In my opinion, this is the most important aspect of the review of the Mechums River Land Trust proposal before us tonight. We have ample demonstration in the staff report that there is presently very adequate land available for residential development in the Crozet Development Area. No increase in the acreage there is necessary or desirable; indeed, the Board of Supervisors has already made that clear in its approval last year of the Land Use Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan, which did not call for expansion of Development Areas. Further more, the work of the Development Areas Initiatives Committee will be completed next year. I do not believe that we should attempt now to anticipate the findings of their investigations toward realizing the County's stated goal of better infill development within currently designated Development Areas. I am unconvinced that there is sufficient pressure at this time upon the Rural Areas adjacent to Crozet to warrant my consent for this project in advance of that Committee's findings. For these reasons, I cannot vote to approve the applicant's request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to permit CPA 97-01." Mr. Tice expressed his agreement with the concerns stated by Commissioners Dotson and Loewenstein. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that CPA 97-01 for Mechums River Land Trust, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. The motion passed unanimously. (Mr. Finley said he supported the motion, "with reluctance.") WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan - Scenic Resources Ms. Scala and Mr. Benish presented the report the Commission. Discussion of the report will take place at an October 28th Work Session. Public comment was invited. None was offered. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. I I � I JA -.t ELL� V. Wayn Cilimberg ecre ary 11?16