HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 11 1996 PC Minutes6-11-96
JUNE 11, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June
11, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Ms. Babs Huckle; and
Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington. Others officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Dotson, Loewenstein and Finley.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of May 21, 1996, were approved (3:0:1) as submitted. (Ms. Huckle abstained
because she had not been present at the May 21 st meeting.)
Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their June
5th meeting.
SUB 96-026 Airport Industrial Park Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to
create 8 lots, averaging 2.7 acres, out of a 21.67 acre parcel, for light industrial uses.
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 19B, is located on the east side of Route
606, approximately 213 mile north of Route 649 (Airport Road), in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. The property is zoned LI, Light Industry and is currently designated
for Industrial Service use in the Hollymead Community. (The application included a
request for a private road and a request for a waiver from screening requirements.)
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
preliminary plat, the private road request and the request for a waiver from screening
requirements (21.7.3).
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about heavy truck traffic on a private road. Mr. Keeler
explained: "For a commercial or industrial private road, the Subdivision Ordinance
requires that it be built to the most traffic intensive use that it can lawfully be put to."
The applicant was represented by W.A. Pace (Jefferson National Bank). He stressed
the current owner is not responsible for the activity that has taken place on the site
previously. He said the Bank had inherited the property through a default on a loan.
He anticipated the property will be developed with small businesses (no larger than
30,000 square feet, with most being 10,000 to 25,000 square feet).
Ms. Huckle asked why it is necessary to remove the trees. Mr. Pace explained that
many trees have been planted along the border on Rt. 606 (a triple row of white pines),
"but a few trees will have to come down ... to try to balance the grading and make it look
decent. "
6-11-96
Public comment was invited.
2
Ms. Carol Finch, representing the Lake Acres homeowners, expressed some concerns
about the proposal. (See Attachment A to these minutes.) Specifically, she asked
that (1) the request for a waiver from screening requirements be denied; (2) a 30- foot
buffer be maintained adjacent to the RA zoned neighborhoods; (3) erosion and
sediment control measures be strictly enforced; (4) strict standards for screening be
required on the border with Rt. 606/Quail Run; and (5) the property be required to
hook to public water and sewer.
To address Ms. Finch's comments, Mr. Pace said water and sewer is already at the
site. He also said that because of the topography of the property and existing
screening, the buildings will not be visible from Rt. 606. There was some confusion as
to the location of the 30-foot buffer requested by the homeowners. Mr. Shepherd said
there already exists a triple row of white pines (as described by Mr. Pace), but the width
of the trees is probably less than 30 feet in some places. Mr. Tom Gale, engineer for
the applicant added: "The (waiver is related to a) grading buffer. As far as
landscaping, there would be no relaxation of landscaping standards. It is just a grading
buffer that accompanies RA zoning ... there will be landscaping there." Mr. Gale
confirmed that the line of trees will stay. Mr. Shepherd added: "And may need to be
increased to ensure that the full plantings are there and 4 feet above the grade of Rt.
606, as a requirement of final approval." It was determined that the plantings are to be
�` 4 feet above grade at the time of planting.
on
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to the history of the property and the fact that the County had had to use the
previous developer's bond to stabilize the site, Ms. Huckle noted bonds which are held
for a long time are often not of a sufficient amount, because of inflation, to cover the
work needed. She hoped this could be avoided in the future.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that the Airport Industrial Park Preliminary Subdivision
Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of private road request and waiver from screening
requirements.
2. Staff approval of final subdivision plat.
3. Approval of Albemarle County Engineering of all relevant final plat requirements and
the following conditions:
/-a
6-11-96
3
WAM"' a. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan,
final private road plans and drainage calculations and revised detention
plans and computations.
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements on Quail Run Road.
c. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of copy and proof of recordation
of a County standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities
Maintenance Agreement.
4. Albemarle County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for Hunterstand
Road and for the access easement serving the drainage basin area.
5. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat, applicant shall install, or post a
landscaping bond pursuant to Section 32.7.9.2 providing for three (3) staggered rows
of screening trees, planted fifteen (15) feet on center, spaced ten (10) feet apart
adjacent to Route 606 where grading has occurred within fifty (50) feet of the right-of-
way. The required trees shall be of sufficient height to provide a screen of at least four
(4) feet above the grade of Route 606.
Ms. Washington seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
---------------------------------------------------------
SUB-96-027 Lake Reynovia Manor Homes Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal
to create 72 lots, averaging 0.16 acres, out of an 11.2 acre portion of the Lake
Reynovia property. Property, described as Tax Map 90D, Parcel A, is located at the
Lake Reynovia residential development on the west side of Avon Street Extended,
approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 64, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The
property is zoned R-4 with proffers and is designated for Low Density Residential use
in Urban Area Neighborhood 4.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. The report concluded: "The preliminary plat
meets the technical ordinance requirements for approval, and with certain conditions,
the final plat can be approved."
Mr. Lilley explained this item had been called before the Commission by adjoining
property owners who indicated they were told by the developer that only single-family
detached housing would be placed at Lake Reynovia." Mr. Lilley explained: "This is a
subdivision plat, approval of which is a ministerial act. The Site Review Committee
reviews it for conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and this particular plat does meet
the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and so the Site Review Committee has
recommended approval of the preliminary plat and has noted conditions for approval of
,, the final plat, which address final plat details. As far as the types of houses that would
6-11-96 4
�%"" have been expected at Lake Reynovia, in this area, or in Reynovia in general, we can
only address what has been presented to and approved by the County. There is an
overall plan for Reynovia,... and in 1988 it was rezoned and townhouses were shown
here. An overall preliminary plat was submitted and approved in 1989 which showed
the lots in more detail and reserved this general area for townhouse or single family
lots. So, it does conform with the zoning that has been approved for this property."
Mr. Lilley confirmed that there is nothing about this proposal which has in any way
changed from what was approved in 1988 and 1989.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Rainer. He said the layout of the property,
in relation to the general locations for single-family and townhouses, was a part of the
1988 approval. There has been no change since 1988. All plats presented since that
time have remained consistent with the original approval. This preliminary plat is in
conformance with County Ordinances and the applicant asks that it be approved. Mr.
Rainer said the current developer of Lake Reynovia was not the original developer. He
was unfamiliar with what representations might have been made by the original
developer to homeowners. He stated: "Our position in terms of the letters (received by
staff), is if there are any issues related to the marketing of the property, there is a
proper form for a hearing on that issue, but this is not that forum." (Mr. Nitchmann
confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Rainer's statement in this regard.)
*awl (Prior to public comment, Mr. Lilley noted that staff had received an additional letter
from an adjoining property owner after the preparation of the staff report. He did not
specify whom the letter was from but said it expressed sentiments similar to those in
letters which were included in the Commission's packet.)
The following residents of the Lake Reynovia development addressed the Commission
and expressed opposition to the construction of townhouses: George Reed, Mike
Kinter, Paul Harris, and Ron Price. Their main reason for opposition was because they
had been told by the previous developer that this was a "single-family development,"
and had purchased their property with that understanding. Additional concerns were:
Flooding problems on some lots which are caused by the fact that the lake is being
used as a stormwater drainage facility and is rapidly silting in; this proposal contains
duplex housing which is outside the area specifically allowed by the proffers of the
1988 rezoning (as perceived by Mr. Kinter's interpretation of the 1988 proffers); and
the proposal exceeds the zoning density ordinance (as perceived by Mr. Kinter's
interpretation of the 1988 proffers). Mr. Price asked that action on the proposal be
delayed to allow the residents time to research their options, before "it has gone too
far."
Mr. Nitchmann advised those who spoke that it was not a role of the Commission to
determine "what a salesperson may or may not have told someone regarding a piece of
property."
6-11-96 5
Mr. Kinter distributed to the Commission copies of 1988 and 1989 approval letters for
this development. He felt the current proposal was in opposition to those approvals in
the following ways:
--"Gross density of the total tract will not exceed 198 dwelling units or 1.98
dwelling units/acre." (proffer #2 in 10/88 letter) Mr. Kinter said the density of the
townhouse units will be close to 7 dwelling units/acre, which is 50% greater than the
original R-4 zoning. [NOTE: Later in the discussion Mr. Lilley addressed this
comment.]
--The 1989 approval of the preliminary plat does not mention either the "Western
Ridge" or the number of dwelling units "because that proffer remains clear from 1988."
--The 1989 approval requires "Planning Commission site plan approval for
townhouses prior to subdivision plat approval for townhouses." [NOTE: The
Commission attempted to understand the intent of this condition later in the meeting.]
Mr. Kinter said he thought the reason for this condition had been because "the new plat
was not specific."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann read the following sentence from Proffer # 2 (as stated in the October
1988 letter): "...Any remaining allowable dwelling units, up to 198 total dwelling units,
which are intended as townhouse units, may be placed only within the area shown for
townhouse units on the Application Plan...." He asked: "Is there a variance for that?"
Mr. Tice responded to Mr. Nitchmann by saying that Proffers #1 states:
"...development will be undertaken in general conformance with the application plan
with the exception of future amendments as may later be provided for during the
preliminary plat approval process. Such modifications to the plan may include, but are
not be limited to ... (d) reconfiguration of townhouse layout...." He said: 'I take it that
was what was done in 1989 (with the approval of the preliminary plat)." Mr. Lilley
agreed that was his understanding also. Mr. Lilley added: "Proffer #1 did envision
some refinement to the general plan that was submitted with the 1988 rezoning. In
1989, the plat is a sort of overall preliminary plat. It was to provide preliminary plat
approval for the single-family dwellings and would require preliminary and final plat
submission for anything other than the single-family lots on that plat. That was
unanimously approved by the Commission in 1989." This proposal reflects no changes
to what was approved at that time. "The area that is being proposed for single family
attached units is in the area that is shown for townhouse or single-family lots on the
preliminary plat. Mr. Lilley said he had conferred with the staff member who had
handled the item in 1989 (Mr. Fritz). Mr. Fritz recalled "the concern with the rezoning
was to maintain the townhouse area internal to Lake Reynovia as opposed to on the
edge adjacent to Mill Creek or Mill Creek South (and that is the reason) it is specified
that the area on the ridge be only single-family detached."
To respond to comments made by some members of the public, Mr. Nitchmann asked if
,� staff could comment on drainage problems and the condition of the Lake. Mr. Jack
6-11-96 6
Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, said a master drainage plan for the property was done
soon after the rezoning. Approximately 90% of the development drains into the existing
lake. A stormwater detention analysis was provided. The lake was to be used as the
stormwater management facility and modifications were made to the outlet structure to
use it also as a sediment detention facility during the construction of the development.
All drainage is being conveyed to the lake either by ditches along the roadway or is
flowing off the roadway and lots and being collected in natural drainage courses and
taken down to the lake. The other 10% of the property drains towards Mill Creek where
it is picked up by a natural drainage course and carried to an intermittent tributary to
Moore's Creek. Mr. Kelsey said whenever an existing lake is being used both for
stormwater management and as an erosion control facility, the County requires that, at
the end of construction, measures be taken to make it a permanent facility. Those
measures include the removal of the sediment which has accumulated during the
construction process. He said it is not unusual for an existing lake to be used for this
purpose. The County holds erosion control bonds for Lake Reynovia but Mr. Kelsey
did not know the particulars of that bond. He said, typically, the Erosion Control Officer
includes in the bond an amount which would allow for the removal of the sediment
(dredging). Mr. Kelsey said he was not aware of any recent complaints about flooding
or erosion problems with this particular facility. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's
request, Mr. Kelsey offered to check with the Erosion Control Officer to see if there may
have been complaints of which he is not aware.
Referring to a condition placed on the June 1989 approval of the preliminary plat, Mr.
Tice said the Commission had required "Commission site plan approval for townhouses
prior to subdivision plat approval for townhouses." Mr. Lilley explained: "For
townhouse units a site plan would be required (but) for duplex units --single-family
attached units --a site plan would not be required." Mr. Tice said: "I wonder if the intent
of the Commission in 1989--though they used the word 'townhouses' because that's
what had been talked about in the proffers, (sentence not completed). Is it your feeling
that the Commission at that time would not have wanted to see a site plan for
duplexes?" Mr. Lilley said he had not looked at the minutes, but based on Ordinance
requirements, there is no site plan requirement for single-family attached (duplex -type)
units.
Steve Driver, an engineer for the applicant, addressed the Commission. Having been
with the development from the beginning, he offered some information about the lake.
He said the lake had been dredged by the developer during Phase I of construction
and had been undercut significantly to allow for future siltation. The lake was approved
by the County as a sediment collecting device, to be used as such throughout the
duration of construction of the project. Regarding the intent of the Commission in 1989,
he said: "The intent as far as the site plan goes, was, if that interior area were to be
developed as townhomes, then the roads serving those areas would be private roads
and any private road townhouse development would require a site plan. That is normal
*AW policy. With this current proposal public streets are to be used and it will be handled as
6-11-96
a single-family development. ... Regarding traffic, driveways, etc., we feel this proposal
addresses aesthetic concerns and traffic safety concerns and provides an interior
development of high quality.... These are proposed manor homes; there are 74
proposed. Every 2 units will be served by a single driveway access, resulting in 37
driveway connections to the roads. ... The driveways will be consistent with the original
plan, i.e. that any lot have space to allow two cars to park side -by -side." Regarding
concerns about flooding, Mr. Driver said he was not aware of any flooding problems.
He noted that most of Mill Creek II drains into this lake also and, unfortunately, a large
amount of silt is coming from that property. He added, however some alterations will
need to be made to the dam, (which is a "'state -regulated dam,) to satisfy County
stormwater management criteria. Those alterations will be required when the
construction on the development is complete (at buildout). The County's Erosion
Control Officer will make sure that the Erosion Control Plan for the property is complied
with.
Ms. Huckle was confused about some of Mr. Driver's comments. She understood him
to say the lake was undercut to allow for the collection of sediment, but it is also a
recreational lake. Mr. Driver said the lake had been used as a recreational facility for
many years prior to the beginning of this development. The developer of the property
in 1988, at the beginning of the construction of Phase I, had dug out the lake so that it
could be used as a sediment receiving facility during construction. Mr. Driver said it is
not unusual for an existing lake to be used as an erosion control facility during
construction. He said: "When the lake was originally dredged, it was anticipated there
would be a significant volume of silt runoff into the lake. In the design process it is
anticipated to go ahead and undercut the lake at the initial phases of construction to
allow for additional siltation in the lake."
Ms. Huckle asked staff to comment on Proffer #2 (10/88) which says "Gross density of
the total tract will not exceed 198 dwelling units, or 1.98 dwelling units/acre." She said
comments had been made that this current proposal was for 4 dwelling units/acre. Mr.
Lilley explained: "The gross density is talking about the 100-acre tract. So they would
be at 1.98 units/acre for gross density. If they were at 4 units/acre, gross density would
be 400 units allowed on a 100-acre parcel." Mr. Lilley added: "For clarification as to
what the R-4 designation allows. It's typically a quarter -acre lot, but there is a cluster
development such that if a sufficient amount of open space is provided, there is no
minimum lot size, which was the case at Lake Reynovia."
There followed a discussion of the definition of townhouse vs. duplex and whether or
not condition No. 1 in the 1989 approval (which required Commission site plan
approval for townhouses prior to subdivision plat approval for townhouses) should
apply to duplex as well as townhouse units. Mr. Lilley explained: "A duplex is different
from a single-family attached unit. It can look the same, but a single-family attached
unit has a property line down the common wall, whereas a duplex does not. A duplex is
,, two units on one parcel of land."
6-11-96
``W Mr. Lilley confirmed that though the plan uses the word 'townhouses,' the current
proposal is for duplexes. Mr. Nitchmann asked: "So how do you change it to a duplex
and still meet the same intent?" Mr. Kamptner explained: "The definitions of duplex
and townhouse in the Zoning Ordinance would lead to the conclusion that a duplex is a
type of townhouse. A duplex is limited to up to units in the series whereas a townhouse
has a common wall through the whole series. So if 6 or 8 units are attached, they
would fall under the general townhouse definition. The duplex is limited to 2 units (with
a common wall). Duplex would be a sub -set of the types of construction that would be
included under townhouse." He confirmed that a duplex is considered a townhouse
(because it has a common wall), but townhouses may or may not be duplexes,
depending on the number of units which are attached together. Ms. Huckle simplified:
"So if it said it could only be duplexes, that would not include townhouses, but
townhouses include duplexes." Mr. Kamptner responded: "Yes, I think that is a fair
reading of it. A duplex would qualify as a townhouse. The use that they are seeking is
a use that is authorized by the County on this property."
CM
Mr. Nitchmann wondered if future consideration should be given to clarification of
these two terms in the Ordinance. Mr. Keeler did not think the definition of these two
terms "is the issue." He said the issue of whether or not it is duplexes or townhouses is
not a concern of the public. Rather, "they were told it was all single-family detached."
Mr. Tice again referred to condition No. 1 of the 1989 preliminary plat approval which
required "Commission site plan approval for townhouses prior to subdivision plat
approval for townhouses." [NOTE: Emphasis added by transcriber in an attempt to
make discussion understandable to reader.] Given the fact that duplexes are
considered to be townhouses, he said: "I am still confused as to how we move forward
and see that this condition is satisfied?"
The Commission wrestled with how to address the question raised by Mr. Tice.
Based on her interpretation of the meaning of condition No. 1, and her understanding
that this item was before the Commission only because it had been called up by
residents of the Lake Reynovia development, Ms. Huckle asked why it would not have
been brought to the Commission in any event so as to fulfill the terms of condition No.
1. Mr. Lilley said: "This is not a site plan and these are not townhouses in the sense of
connected units that typically have a site plan that needs to be approved. Even if a site
plan were required, there would be nothing to prevent them from doing their subdivision
plat first." Mr. Tice responded: "Except that the Planning Commission made it a
condition that they approve the site plan before the subdivision plat." Mr. Lilley
interpreted the condition to mean "prior to final subdivision plat approval." [Emphasis
added by transcriber.] Mr. Tice said: "Were it not for this condition, I would agree with
YOU."
� 7r
6-11-96 9
-aw Mr. Nitchmann said: "I guess that is where the confusion comes from. It says
"Commission site plan approval for townhouses prior to the subdivision plat. We have
a subdivision plat here and we have never seen a site plan approval." Mr. Lilley again
said: "But these aren't townhouses." Both Commissions Nitchmann and Tice pointed
out "but we have been told that duplexes are townhouses."
Mr. Kamptner interjected: "But in the context of a site plan... townhouses do require site
plans. Townhouses, by our understanding, are multiple units connected. Duplexes,
where we just have 2 units connected, do not require a site plan. So this condition, as
understand Mr. Keeler, was designed specifically for the type of townhouse --not
duplexes-- which would normally require a site plan anyway, which would be the
multiple attached units." Mr. Keeler said there is no pre -requisite for site plan approval
for subdivision. However, developers are advised to do a site plan prior to a subdivision
plat because a subdivision plat can be approved administratively and it is more cost
efficient to do a site plan first. He felt condition No. 1 was "in that context because (site
plans) are what we normally get when we get townhouse developments because it
makes more sense that way." Mr. Keeler said: "I don't know if we can fail to approve a
subdivision plat based on this condition."
Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Then why the condition. Why would they ask for a site plan
approval if they didn't think it was important to see one?" Staff noted that the 1989
approval had been a Consent Agenda item and it was probable that very little, if any,
discussion had taken place.
Ms. Huckle said she was "very uncomfortable" with this request. She hoped the item
could be deferred to allow time for her to visit the site.
Mr. Nitchmann wondered what could be accomplished, in terms of action on this
proposal, even if flooding problems are confirmed. Ms. Huckle said such a
determination might mean that the original drainage plans were not correct. She noted
that 2 opposing opinions have been stated in terms of whether or not flooding is taking
place on the property. She said: "I would like to know." Mr. Kamptner questioned
whether flooding which might be occurring on the property, as a whole, was an issue
which is pertinent to this particular phase of development, except in terms of conditions
which may need to be imposed on this plat to address drainage problems related to this
phase. (Mr. Lilley said such conditions would be a part of final plat approval. Given
the topography of this section of the property, Mr. Keeler did not think this phase of
development would have any effect on any drainage problems currently being
experienced by other properties.)
It was determined the 60-day time period (for Commission action to have taken place
on the proposal) would be up on June 23rd.
6-11-96 10
V" Staff questioned whether there would be time to address Commission questions prior to
June 23rd. Mr. Rainer, the applicant's representative, said the applicant would not
agree to a deferral beyond the 60-day time limit. Mr. Rainer said: "Every one of your
representatives is telling you that this is a preliminary plan. There is no reason to delay
this plan and each one of your concerns can be addressed by (your staff) at the
appropriate point in the process. We're at the preliminary process stage. All your
representatives are saying there is no reason to delay this. So we don't agree to a
delay. We ask that you approve it tonight and every one of your concerns can be
addressed."
Mr. Kamptner said staff could listen to the tape of the June 13, 1989, Commission
meeting to see if any discussion took place about this item and what the nature of the
discussion was at that time.
Mr. Nitchmann felt the condition was reasonably clear, except that no one had made a
distinction between townhouses and duplexes. He said: "But if in that discussion it
comes out that way, that they discussed duplexes and townhouses, then, as far as I'm
concerned, this will move forward. "
Based on some of the present Commission's recent conditions on applications, Mr. Tice
said he could understand how a subsequent Commission might have trouble
understanding what was intended at a previous time. Addressing the issue of
representations made by the previous developer or previous salespersons about the
property, he said that was not something the Commission could deal with. He felt the
"change in character to the neighborhood and the occupancy and safety issues" were
dealt with by the previous Commission and Supervisors. He said he did have
questions about the drainage plan. Regarding lakes which are used for stormwater
and siltation basins, he questioned whether the County is "doing enough to require
Best Management Practices and E & S controls above the lakes to prevent siltation
coming into them to really make the lakes as high an amenity value as they ought to
be." In conclusion, he said the main issue is the interpretation of the 1989 condition.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved that the Lake Reynovia Manor Homes Preliminary
Subdivision Plat be deferred to June 18, 1996, based on the interpretation that it was
the intent of the 1989 approval that the Commission approve a site plan prior to
approval of a subdivision plat, and to allow time for staff to check the record to see if
the Commission's intent at that time can be clarified, and to allow time for County
Engineering staff to look into drainage concerns that have been raised by the public.
Ms. Washington seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
on
6-11-96
9:
Cm
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
11