Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 16 1996 PC MinutesJANUARY 16, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; 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. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Mr. Cilimberg, acting as Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared that a quorum was present. Election of Officers Mr. Cilimberg called for nominations for the office of Chair of the Commission. Ms. Huckle nominated Mr. Nitchmann; Mr. Dotson seconded the nomination. There being no further nominations and without further discussion, Mr. Nitchmann was unanimously elected to serve as Chairman of the Commission for 1996. Mr. Nitchmann called for nominations for the office of Vice Chair. Ms. Huckle nominated Mr. Dotson; Mr. Nitchmann seconded the nomination. There being no further nominations and without further discussion, Mr. Dotson was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Commission for 1996. Mr. Nitchmann called for nominations for the office of Secretary. Mr. Dotson nominated Mr. Cilimberg; Ms. Huckle seconded the nomination. There being no further nominations and without further discussion, Mr. Cilimberg was unanimously elected to serve as Secretary of the Commission for 1996. Set Meeting Time, Day, Place for Calendar Year 1996 Ms. Huckle moved that the meeting time, day and place remain the same temporarily, and that they be discussed again when a full Commission has been appointed. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Nitchmann asked that Commissioners consider the possibility of changing the meeting time to 6:00 p.m. He felt this would result in greater citizen participation. Ms. Huckle said she would not support such a change. It was agreed Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion would be discussed after a full Commission has been established. 1-16-96 2 I�Nw The minutes of the December 12, 1995 meeting were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the January 3rd Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Adventure Land Site Plan - Request for modification of Zoning Ordinance Sections 21.7.3, to allow grading within 20 feet of adjacent residential property and 4.12.6.3b to allow increased slope in the parking areas. and Hideaway at Keswick Site Plan - Request for modification of Zoning Ordinance Section 4.12.6.2 to allow one-way circulation. Mr. Lilley and Mr. Fritz gave very brief staff reports. Staff recommended approval of the requests for modifications for both site plans. O Public comment was invited. Mr. Charles Tractor, a Woodbrook resident, addressed the Commission. He presented four letters of opposition which bore the signatures of representatives of the Homeowners' Associations for Woodbrook, Westmoreland, Northfields and Raintree subdivisions. Mr. Tractor read the statement into the record. A copy of the statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. Mr. Fritz said the comments made by Mr. Tractor were similar to those made at previous hearings for the special permit and the preliminary site plan. Mr. Nitchmann recalled that the Commission had recommended approval of previous requests for this project. He said he did not remember there being significant opposition expressed at the Commission level. Mr. Fritz said more opposition had been presented at the Board hearings. Mr. Dotson asked if any of the neighborhoods represented by Mr. Tractor are on the same side of Rt. 29 as this project. Mr. Fritz replied that all the neighborhoods mentioned are on the east side of Rt. 29, i.e., the opposite side of 29. As a former resident of Woodbrook, Mr. Dotson said he is very aware of "how sensitive the 29 commercial area is" to the Woodbrook residents. He pointed out, however, that this site is on the opposite side of Rt. 29--probably far enough removed that only very 1-16-96 3 , W loud noise may be a concern. He said all approvals have already been granted for the project and the Commission is only being asked to grant modifications at this time, modifications which are allowed for in the Ordinance. Given the fact that all approvals have been granted, he said he felt the modifications requested "make sense." MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that both items on the Consent Agenda --Adventure Land Site Plan modification requests and Hideaway at Keswick Site Plan modification request --be approved. Mr. Tice seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle asked staff to explain the meaning of "future activities" which is shown on the Adventure Land plan. Mr. Fritz explained the original plan noted additional activities such as outdoor children's play area and picnic area. Uses allowed are limited by the special permit. The use will have to meet the noise regulations of the Ordinance. Ms. Huckle said she had voted against the Adventure Land proposal at previous hearings, but because it has been approved she said she would support the motion. The motion for approval of the Consent Agenda items passed unanimously. SUB-96-112 Garden Gate Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create a nine lot rural preservation development on approximately 112 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 99, parcel 66 is located on the east side of Route 712 approximately 0.9 miles north of Route 633 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This area is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff answers to specific Commission questions included the following: --Condition 1(c) requires verification of the 100-year flood plain elevation. --The stream easement, which is a Water Resources Protection Areas vegetative buffer, is 100 feet on either side of the water. --This item does not require Board approval. This action is all that is required for PRD's of less than 20 lots. A final plat can be administratively approved if it meets the conditions which are outlined in the preliminary approval. Referring to a statement in the applicant's letter, Ms. Huckle questioned how this proposal will have less impact on schools and roads than conventional development if it will have the same number of lots as could be accomplished by right. Referring to Attachment C to the staff report, page 1, which states that "Wells and septic systems will be provided for each lot," Ms. Huckle asked if this means these will 1�5 1-16-96 4 be provided by the seller. She said this area is known to have ground water inadequacies and she asked if there was any requirement that the developer must prove that water is available. (Mr. Shepherd's reply was inaudible.) The issue of water was discussed later in the hearing. The applicant was represented by Mr. Earl Whitley. He said he thought the RPD development would be an asset to the county because it will cluster the lots and will preserve the mountain. Answers to Commission questions included the following: --The price range envisioned for the conventional, stick -built homes is around $165,000. They will be of "country" styling, 1,700 to 1,900 square feet. --It has already been determined that the lots will perk. —Regarding the issue of water, he said: "I will have to provide the well." Studies indicate that water is available on the property, though it may be deep. Mr. Dotson raised questions about the proposed lot layout which he said appears to have been engineered so as to have "straight lot lines and long narrow lots," which results in the stream making parts of some lots unusable. He said it appears the stream and topography have been ignored in the lot layout. He asked if the applicant would be willing, before approval of the final plat, to consider redrawing the lots so that _" M the sowis used as a rear boundary. Mr. Whitley said he wasn't sure he would be able to meet the requirement for 150 feet of road frontage if the lots were redrawn as *aw suggested by Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson pointed out how the lots might be redrawn so that the frontage would not be impacted. He suggested that a condition be added to the effect that "an effort will be made to adjust the lot lines to better to conform to the topography," and then staff and the applicant could work it out with staff making the determination that a real effort was made by the applicant to meet Mr. Dotson's suggestion. Mr. Whitley expressed a willingness to look into the possibility of redrawing the lines. Mr. Tice asked if the applicant plans to connect the existing house (the applicant's) by a road across the dam which will connect to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Whitley said the road across the dam already exists. Mr. Tice pointed out that one of the objectives of a Rural Preservation Development is the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities. He asked if the main road will be available for agriculture and forestry uses. He was concerned that the types of vehicles used in these activities might be too heavy to cross the dam. Mr. Whitley said he had no plans for forestal activities on the property, but he could not control what a future owner might do. He said he had no intention of eliminating the road across the dam after the new road is constructed. Mr. Whitley said presently the open land is in hay. He has no animals on the property and he has no plans for fencing. Public comment was invited. En 1-16-96 5 „ Mr. Dan Clements, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: (1) Impact to his property; (2) Change to a fertile agricultural valley which is worthy of preservation; and (3) Personal anti -growth beliefs. Mr. Steve Clements, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He asked why the lots are all at one end of the property. [Mr. Nitchmann later explained one of the purposes of an RPD is to cluster the lots so as to preserve the agricultural and forestal land.] He expressed concerns about the possible impact of 8 more wells on the existing wells in the area and about the possibility of further subdivision of the property. [Mr. Nitchmann explained the proposal for 8 development lots uses all development rights and, therefore, the property cannot be further subdivided under the present Ordinance. Also a "perpetual" Preservation Easement on the remainder of the property prohibits it from any development (other than the house which already exists)]. Mr. Dan Clements asked if the property could ever be rezoned. Mr. Kamptner responded: "The land could always be rezoned. But remember that the 94+ acres would be subject to this perpetual easement which will preclude any kind of development regardless of the zoning." Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, addressed the Commission. He said he feels this is solely a case of property rights and the applicant has met all the necessary criteria. He urged the Commission to approve the request. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked if staff reviews the terms of the proposed easement. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively, explaining: "The easements are subject to not only the approval and signature of the County, but also of the Recreational Facilities Authority, which was created expressly to co -hold the easement with the County. It is at that level, normally, that details are worked out, if, in fact, the applicant were considering forestry activities on the property. That would be addressed by the RFA as part of the easement." Ms. Huckle said the proposal does not meet all the criteria for an RPD because it is not preserving agriculture given the fact that the houses will be built on the prime soils. Mr. Dotson said he very much supports the RPD concept and he supports this application. He said he would favor, however, a stipulation that the lot lines will be adjusted to better conform to the topography. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the Garden Farm Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1-16-96 6 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final drainage plans and calculations. b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans. c. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final road plans and drainage calculations. This will include a verification of the 100 year floodplain elevation for the pond and perennial stream. d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final grading and drainage plan. e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of soil erosion plan. f. Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment for any disturbances of the WRPA buffers. g. Health Department approval of primary and reserve drainfield locations for each lot. h. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval of rural preservation easement for the preservation tract. i. Staff approval of documents that create the Homeowner's Association, Covenants and Restrictions. j. Staff approval of road names. k. If the deeded right of way for Second Green Hill Farm Land Trust is not abandoned, state its width and show a 25' setback from the right of way. I. Final plat must be at a scale of 1" = 100'. 2. Final plat to adjust lot lines so as to better conform to topography so that stream is used as rear boundary line, with staff to make the judgment as to when the applicant has done everything possible to meet this condition. [NOTE: Mr. Dotson later clarified that it was the intent of his motion that if it is found the applicant cannot redraw the lot lines as suggested, the approval is still valid.] Discussion: Noting that the applicant stated he was going to drill the wells, Ms. Huckle wanted a condition to be added which would require the applicant to drill wells. Mr. Nitchmann disagreed, saying he did not think the Commission had the authority to make such a requirement. He pointed out that a property owner will not build a home before determining that water is available on the property. (Ms. Huckle disagreed, saying "A lot of people do.") Mr. Nitchmann asked the County Attorney to comment on Ms. Huckle's suggestion. Mr. Kamptner replied: "From what I have heard from the County Attorney and from Mr. Cilimberg, we have ordinarily not imposed that type of condition at this stage of the VOW process." 1-16-96 7 Mr. Finley asked if the Commission, in approval of a subdivision, has any purview over the impact to the water table and existing wells. Ms. Huckle responded: "State law says you can have as much water as you can take out of the ground, even if you take it all." [There was no other response to Mr. Finley's question.] The motion for approval passed (4:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. WORK SESSION - Six -Year Secondary Road Plan Mr. Benish presented the staff report. It explained that VDOT submitted an updated Six -Year Secondary Road Plan based on the County's current priority list. VDOT recommended the following changes: (1) To combine the County -wide Sign, Pipe, and Seed funds (priority #1) with the County -wide Plant Mix funds (priority #2); and (2) Lowering the priority for two unpaved road projects, Routes 711 and 760 in North Garden. Staff supported both these changes. Except for the VDOT recommended changes, staff was recommending that no major changes be made to the project priorities in the Plan this year based on the ongoing update and anticipated adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS). Staff was also making the following recommendations: (1) Continued participation in the Revenue Sharing Program to the maximum extent feasible; and (2) Additional funds be allocated to the County -wide projects (priority #1) to expedite the completion of the projects. (This recommendation was also recommended by VDOT.) (3) That the Commission and Board use this opportunity to review the County's policy on unpaved roads. Staff was recommending that the Board reaffirm, by resolution, the existing road paving policy and re -affirm the Board's desire to require full donation/dedication of right-of-way in order to use unpaved road funds for paving projects. [NOTE: Later in the meeting, Mr. Benish distributed a new priority list which reflected the recommendations described above. He pointed out one error --Item #27 (Advance Mills Road) was on this new list, but had been wrongly omitted from the Attachment A list.] Staff proposed that the Commission recommend approval to the Board of (1) The VDOT Draft Secondary System Construction Program (included as Attachment B of the staff report) with the combination of the two Count -wide projects (priorities #1 and #3 'low f 1-16-96 0 into one project (to be prioritized as #1); and (2) The re -affirmation of the existing unpaved roads policy. Mr. Nitchmann wondered why Rts. 711 and 760 in North Garden were proposed for lower priority, given the issue of schoolbus safety. Mr. Benish said part of the reason was because of public sentiment. Ms. Angela Tucker, a VDOT representative, said the shifting of priority had been based on the need to emphasize the need to donate right- of-way. She said neither 711, 712 nor 760 in North Garden had all available right-of- way donated, to date. However, Rt. 712 was not shifted because it was high in the plan and right-of-way donation is currently being discussed with all property owners and is close to being accomplished. There was a brief discussion of the plans for the Rt. 250 corridor. Mr. Nitchmann asked when improvements to the Rt. 250 East/Keswick Road intersection are envisioned. Ms. Tucker estimated one year. Mr. Nitchmann expressed the hope that something could be done to improve the Rt. 250/Rt. 729 intersection. Mr. Nitchmann invited Ms. Tucker to address the Commission at some future time (late February or early March) on the policies of VDOT in relationship to the transportation problems in Albemarle County. ,vW Mr. Finley asked staff to comment on item #11, on Attachment G (Rt. 667 from its intersection with Rt. 665 to its intersection with Rt. 776). He asked why 776 was the terminus of this project, and not Rt. 601. Ms. Tucker said the terminus was based upon "the intersection of two state routes providing a termini for that project." She said it is possible this could be two back-to-back, or consecutive projects, i.e. 665 to 776 and 776 to 601. Mr. Finley said school buses travel on both sections and there are treacherous areas. Ms. Tucker said: "It's placement in this priority list lends itself well to looking at that for a potential addition." Mr. Finley said he thinks there is dedicated right-of-way, all the way, on both sides. Mr. Finley said it seems VDOT is using right- of-way as a "club", i.e. "saying you better give it to us or we'll take you off the list." He concluded: "It looks like that section has gone off the list for some reason, although it appears the 25-foot right-of-way is already dedicated on both sides." Mr. Dotson said he thought it would be helpful if staff would use the names of roads, instead of route numbers. Mr. Cilimberg commented briefly on the plans for improvements to Airport Road (#7 on the list). He said the County is currently working with the Airport Authority and VDOT regarding the possibility of use of the Airport Access Fund to help pay for this project, potentially escalating its time frame. On the question of whether or not the Commission should hold a public hearing on the ``` Mw Six -Year Road Plan prior to sending it on to the Board, staff was recommending that I rn 1-16-96 9 the Commission not hold a public hearing given the fact that there is very little change. Mr. Dotson did not think there was much to be gained by holding a public hearing at the Commission level. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the Commission recommend approval to the Board of (1) The VDOT Draft Secondary System Construction Program (included as Attachment B of the staff report, distributed by Mr. Benish at this meeting) with the combination of the two County -wide projects (priorities #1 and #3 into one project to be prioritized as #1); and (2) The re -affirmation of the existing unpaved roads policy. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Finley initially said he would not support the motion because it appeared to him that some of the priorities had been changed. After staff explained the numbering system on the priority list and said no projects were re -prioritized, he said his understanding of the list had been incorrect. However, he still expressed reluctance to support the motion without the addition of the section of Rt. 667 from Rt. 776 to 601 (project #54), thus making the improvement to Rt. 667 begin at its intersection with Rt. 665 and terminate at its intersection with Rt. 601, rather than terminating at Rt. 776 as presently stated. Mr. Nitchmann said the motion could include a recommendation to study the possible addition of the section described by Mr. Finley. Mr. Finley said he would support the motion it it were so amended. Mr. Benish said if the Commission so desired, staff would revise the priority to "reflect the full scope," and Ms. Tucker can then research the feasibility of the change in terms of funding and whether it should be listed as a separate project. Mr. Dotson agreed to revise his motion to include a change to the description of project #54 (gravel road project Rt. 667) saying it is to begin at the intersection with Rt. 665 and end at the intersection with Rt. 601. Ms. Huckle agreed to this amendment to the motion. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS In place of presenting Jefferson Cups to retiring Commission members, as has been the custom in the past, Ms. Huckle said Mr. Jenkins suggested that cash contributions C/ 1-16-96 10 be made instead to one of the housing improvement groups. It was decided this would be discussed again when a full Commission is present. Mr. Nitchmann requested the following: --That the Commission's 1995 Annual Report be completed by February 15th and that the actions taken be included with each item listed. --A copy of the 94-95 Work Program be re -distributed to all Commissioners. --A copy of the Comp Plan Action Agenda (approved at the December 19, 1995, meeting) be distributed to all Commissioners. --A list of committee assignments be prepared so that replacements can be appointed. --A "general" work session be scheduled where Commissioners can share ideas about projects which they feel need attention, either in their own particular districts, or for the County as a whole. Mr. Dotson suggested a work session dealing with procedure, legal issues, meeting times, etc. would be helpful, particularly for the new Commissioners. There was a brief discussion about the Planning Commissioner certification program *4w offered by VPI Extension. Mr. Cilimberg said the program is very highly regarded nationally. He encouraged any Commissioner interested to participate. He said there are funds available which may cover most of the costs. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. M En V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary 110