Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 18 1996 PC Minutescm JUNE 18, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner Dotson. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.and a quorum was established. The minutes of June 4, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted. ZMA-96-04 Encore Investments Ltd Partnership - Proposal to rezone approximately 11.2 acres from CO, Commercial Office and R-10, Residential to PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 124A, 124B, and 124C, is located on the north side of Rio Road east of Putt -Putt Lane in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Office Service in Neighborhood 2. Deferred from the June 4, 1996 Commission meeting. 111*MW; Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He passed to the Commission copies of amended proffers and a copy of a letter from the Virginia Department of Transportation. (VDOT expressed no opposition to the proposal.) Though the staff report said staff was recommending denial of the request, Mr. Fritz explained that all those factors listed in the staff report which were of concern to staff have been addressed and, therefore, staff can now support the request, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. He said the request for Planned Development zoning is "a response to a long-standing County policy to encourage planned developments as opposed to spot zoning and our agreement that it is in everyone's best interest to go the planned development route with a master plan for infrastructure including the sub -regional stormwater detention facility." He explained the proffers. Public comment was invited. Mr. Donald Lyon and Mr. John McDowell (representing the Raintree and Northfields Homeowners' Associations) addressed the Commission. They expressed opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: --Additional traffic on this section of Rio Road which already has a very high accident rate (50 accidents in the last year). --No safety devices are proposed at the intersection with Rio Road. Em --Raintree has no objection to the property being developed in CO uses, but this *MWI proposal, which will allow CO, C-1 and HC uses, will result in a higher density development than was anticipated by the adjacent neighborhoods. --Retail uses in this area will disturb the "nature of the area." --Some of the uses which the applicant proposes by special permit (such as medical facilities, hotels, nurseries) would not be appropriate on this property. --PD-MC zoning does not serve as a "transitional" area, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Charles Tractor, Vice President of the Woodbrook Homeowners' Association, expressed agreement with Mr. Lyon's and Mr. McDowell's comments. He was opposed to any development which will add more traffic to Rio Road. Mr. Wagner responded to public comment. He said the applicant has stayed in contact with the Raintree Association since 1989. The current plan has been discussed with the Homeowners' representatives and they have been made aware of various changes, some of which have been in response to the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Wagner listed what he feels are 3 advantages to this approach: (1) The applicant is being "up front" about what is envisioned for the property; (2) Both the special permit and rezoning process allow for full public input; and (3) A special permit is more precise in terms of use and the County has much more control over a special permit. On the issue of traffic, Mr. Wagner said this project, at buildout, will generate 914 vtpd, which is 1.8% of the vehicles on Rio Road. The project will generate 147 vtpd at the morning peak hour, with 75% entering or exiting to the west. Afternoon peak hour generation rate is 127 vtpd. In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Fritz listed those by -right uses which could be placed on the property under CO usage. He confirmed that the uses allowed do not include convenience stores or other retail establishments. Mr. Fritz agreed that such uses are typically not appropriate in an office service designation adjacent to residential neighborhoods. He said: "That is what led to the proffers. The only uses that are permitted without any additional review, other than those permitted in the CO district, are the office and business machine sales and service, barber and beauty shops and the health spa. Other than that, the only permitted uses without further review by the Commission and Board, are CO uses." Mr. Nitchmann summarized: "So the applicant is asking for four additional uses in the CO zone that are not currently allowed." Mr. Fritz said it is actually only three additional uses because business machine sales and service is considered one use. Mr. Fritz said these three uses would not be allowed in the CO zone and the only way to include them would be (1) To amend the Zoning Ordinance to add them; or (2) To go to a planned development approach, as the applicant is proposing here. Mr. Fritz said VDOT's concerns about traffic were not with the increase in traffic, because PD-MC could result in fewer vehicle trips than the existing R-10/CO mix on the property. Rather, the concern was with the change in characteristics, i.e. "the peak / 77 hours would be different for all commercial vs. a mix of commercial and residential, 11%W which could result in a change in the pattern of traffic and turning movements." It was VDOT's final determination that the proposal would not significantly change the traffic pattern. The possibility of a traffic signal was considered but there was concern about having another light in such close proximity to the signal at the intersection of Rio and Putt -Putt Drive. VDOT determined that a signal was not needed. M Referring to the number of accidents along this stretch of Rio Road, Mr. Nitchmann wondered how many were related to the improvements which are taking place on Rt. 29. Staff could not respond. Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment on buffering. Mr. Fritz said the original plan had called for a "restricted area" adjacent to Raintree. (It was actually an area to be used for stormwater detention.) Mr. Fritz said he had asked that the applicant remove the reference to a restricted area and that there "not be any increased restrictions on a portion of the property (because) that particular area will be used as a detention area, that will serve as a buffer. The Ordinance also includes provisions for buffering and screening of objectionable uses." It is staffs opinion that the Ordinance will provide for sufficient buffer to the adjacent development. Screening and buffering will be dealt with at the time of site plan submittal. Mr. Tice quoted from Sec. 25(a).4.2 of the Ordinance: "To encourage visual cohesiveness and a park -like atmosphere, and to protect adjoining residential districts, uses and structures, parking areas shall be oriented toward internal travelways and away from adjoining residential districts." He expressed concern about the lack of a more definitive plan for the development of the property. Mr. Fritz confirmed those items listed in the section quoted by Mr. Tice would be addressed at the site plan stage of development. Mr. Fritz said he does not feel the lack of a detailed plan is a concern at this time because of the relatively flat topography of this site, which means there are no existing impediments on the property which would limit the ability to move things around on the site. Mr. Tice noted that the outflow from the detention basin is very close to the Raintree property line. He noted that the outflow is shown as being perpendicular to the stream and this often can cause erosion problems. Mr. Fritz said the Engineering Department would look at that very closely during site plan review. The Engineering Department has expressed no concerns. Mr. Nitchmann summarized the proposal: "A request for a zoning change with all uses proffered out from a PD-MC zone except for office machines sales and service, barber and beauty shops and health spas. All other uses are the usual commercial office type facilities. VDOT has determined that the traffic will be no greater than with current zoning. The proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan." /7 I Mr. Tice agreed that the traffic issues had been addressed by VDOT. However, based on the plan which has been presented, he said he was having trouble visualizing the development, taking into account the surrounding communities and surrounding zoning. He concluded: "Without further information, I don't think I can support this." Ms. Huckle said: "If we hope to increase the density in the growth areas and encourage people to purchase property there, these homeowners must have confidence that the county will be consistent in land use to buffer or protect their property, so I can't support it either." Mr. Loewenstein said he had concerns about the relationship of this proposed zoning to the surrounding areas. He said: "It seems to me there is some inconsistency, especially since this is a relatively small parcel, with this use when compared to some immediately surrounding uses. I also have concerns about transportation and other safety issues. I don't feel I have enough information to base a decision, so I would not be able to support this either." Mr. Nitchmann asked what type of further information was envisioned. Mr. Tice said the Ordinance is very clear about the intent for planned development districts. He quoted: "...to provide for the comfort and convenience of residents, to facilitate protection of the character of surrounding neighborhoods, and to lessen traffic impact...." He said: "Based on the plan before us, even with the restrictions that the applicant has offered, I can't see how we can make the decision that this meets those intents, that what is going to occur on this property is something that is going to protect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. I am very much in favor of planned development districts and even with this being such a small parcel, I would be prepared to support such a zoning if we had all the information in front of us to be able to say that 'yes, this meets those intents."' He said he would like to see at least a conceptual site plan. Mr. Loewenstein said he would like to see more specific numbers for traffic generation. He said he feels that entire area is "under siege" in terms of traffic problems. He concluded: "I don't think we can make a decision like this lightly. I do have concerns about safety of the road and I would like to see some numbers." Ms. Huckle noted that it can be assumed the buildings will all face Rio Road, so the backs of the buildings, where dumpsters, etc. will be located, will be facing the residential development. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that would likely be the case even with CO development of the property. Though Mr. Nitchmann asked if a deferral might be in order, the applicant asked that the Commission take action on the request. r77 MOTION: Mr. Tice moved that ZMA-96-04 for Encore Investments Ltd. Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion. The motion passed (4:2) With Commissioners Finley and Nitchmann casting the dissenting votes. SUB-96-027 Lake Reynovia Manor Homes Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 74 lots, averaging 15 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. Deferred from the June 11, 1996 Commission meeting. Mr. Lilley briefly summarized the proposal and the concerns which had been raised by the Commission at the June 11th meeting. Those concerns had dealt with (1) existing stormwater drainage problems in the development and (2) confusion as to the intent of a condition placed on the 1989 approval of the Preliminary Plat which required a site plan approval for townhouses prior to approval of a subdivision plat for townhouses. Regarding the second concern, Mr. Lilley explained that the tape of the 1989 meeting had revealed no additional information because the item was a Consent Agenda item and no discussion had taken place. The item had been unanimously approved at that time. Mr. Lilley said he had spoken with Mr. Fritz, the planner who had handled the 1989 application, and it was his understanding that "the overall preliminary plat that was approved for Lake Reynovia was considered preliminary plat approval for the single- family lots and phases that come in for single-family development now are submitted as final plats. The intent was to have some sort of preliminary review for the area that was expected, generally, to be townhouse development, based on the original rezoning plan. So there would need to be some level of preliminary plan review. It was expected they would be townhouses so the condition was to address what would normally be done for townhouses which is site plan review. As I stated last week, duplexes, single-family attached units, don't require a site plan and the staff position was, and still is, that there is no need for a site plan. The intent of that condition was that there would be preliminary review of the overall design and the preliminary plat really affords you the opportunity for review of the design." Staff had received a petition signed by 39 Lake Reynovia residents which "urges denial based on misrepresentation of the understanding of the types of units that would be built there, an insufficient drainage system and a change in the character of the neighborhood." Mr. Lilley noted that the Lake Reynovia residents' concerns about misrepresentations made to them by the former developer regarding housing types was 1%.►, not a matter that could be addressed by the Commission. Mr. Kamptner once again explained that the Commission's role in this review is a N%W "ministerial action" and if it is determined that the preliminary plat satisfies the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance, then your act is ministerial and that means you have no discretion to deny the application." Mr. Lilley added: "Unless you can find there is a technical requirement with the Ordinance requirements." Mr. Kamptner responded: "Right, if it doesn't satisfy the requirements." Mr. Lilley distributed to the Commission photographs showing flooding which is occurring on one of the Lake Reynovia lots (owned by Mr. Paul Harris). Mr. Nitchmann noted that the Zoning Administrator visited the development and found there to be violations related to erosion control. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Lilley confirmed that a site plan for the townhouses would encompass the same area as a subdivision plat for the townhouses. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, addressed the Commission to address the drainage issue. He said he had investigated a total of 9 complaints. (7 complaints were received at the June 11th Commission meeting and 2 had been received by the Engineering Office in the last year.) He said the majority of the problems could be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan. Some of the problems are related to the construction of the roads and will have to be corrected before VDOT will approve the roads and accept them into the secondary road system. Some of the problems were related to construction of buildings or improvements made by the property owners. The County holds an Erosion Control Bond on the property. He confirmed that the problems are not the fault of the Erosion Control Plan, but rather are a result of the way the plan has been executed. He said he did not feel any of the existing problems are a danger to health, safety or welfare at this time, but if left unattended they could become more serious. He noted that this property is still in a state of construction so it is expected that there will be areas of erosion from time to time. All these items will be addressed as the construction of the site is completed. He did not find any problems which would indicate that "a change in the way we do business" is required. Mr. Nitchmann wondered if there is anything the County could be doing to prevent problems, like those shown in the photographs of Mr. Harris' property, from happening in the future. He wondered if perhaps the detention basin had been undersized on this property. Again referring to the photographs, which showed 2-feet deep water in Mr. Harris' yard, Mr. Nitchmann expressed concerns about children's safety. Ms. Huckle agreed. Mr. Nitchmann said the question for the Commission to address at this time is whether or not the existing drainage problems will be worsened by the addition of the manor homes which are being proposed. Mr. Kelsey addressed this saying: "These problems have nothing to do with the manor home development. With the exception of about an 1.4aw acre and a half, all the drainage from the manor home section is going right straight to /X/ Lake Reynovia." (Mr. Kelsey later said 1 1/2 acres will drain to Reynovia Drive. "It is collected by the ditch on the south side and is piped to a culvert to a sediment trap which is located adjacent to lot 82.) Mr. Finley noted that the sediment pond is temporary. He asked when it will be taken out. Mr. Kelsey responded: "When the developer gets those lots stabilized better. There are three lots--87, 89 and 91--that will be receiving a Certified Letter from the Erosion Control Officer. The letter, citing violations of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, will be sent to both the developer and the builder. The sites have been disturbed and idle for too long. They need to get in there and stabilize those areas." Noting that there has been a problem in the area adjacent to the sediment trap (where 1 1/2 acres of this manor home section will drain), Mr. Loewenstein asked: "Will the additional runoff make this worse if something can't be done to stabilize that situation before hand." Mr. Kelsey responded: "If the water can be contained in the trap and properly discharged away, the runoff from the manor homes will not be a problem. ... If problems are evident, the Erosion Control Officer can make sure that those items are corrected so that the water stays in the basin and is discharged like it's supposed to be." Mr. Loewenstein asked if this would be done prior to the commencement of construction on the manor home development. Mr. Kelsey responded: "Those are items which are already under control of the existing Erosion Control Plan and can be ;k%W addressed. Whether single-family residential or single-family attached is approved in that section, the same area will be draining in that same direction and we still have to deal with it under the current Erosion Control Plan. And we have to deal with it whether this proposal goes forward or not." Mr. Loewenstein said he would not want action on the current proposal to cause the existing drainage problems to become worse. The applicant's representative, Mr. Steve Rainer, briefly addressed the Commission. He said the three lots noted by Mr. Kelsey, 87,89 and 91, have been sold to a builder. He said: "All the erosion issues will be dealt with. Anytime there is a building site such as this, combined with the hard rains of the past few weeks, it is possible to come up with photographs showing mud and water. That is the nature of development. But all those issues will be addressed, certainly by completion, and there is a bond in place." He felt the issue before the Commission was whether the plan that has been submitted is in accordance with applicable County ordinances. Staff has determined that it is in accordance, and the applicant asks that it be approved. He asked that discussion stay focused on those issues which are relevant to this proposal. Ms. Huckle said some of the homeowners have told her that part of the problem is the fact that neither the developer nor the builder will take responsibility for the problems. Each is blaming the other and neither is correcting the problems. Mr. Rainer said it is his understanding that any citation for violations will go to the owner of the property in /Y question. The owner of the property can easily be determined by court records. He did 1%W not think there would be any problem with someone denying that they own certain property. He concluded: "I am not trying to shirk responsibility. The developer, in terms of finishing up this project and having the bond released, is going to have the responsibility to see that all the erosion issues are taken care of to the County's satisfaction. He's not going to be able to avoid that by saying it is somebody else's problem." Ms. Huckle said she feels there are more than 3 lots involved in the drainage problems. Mr. Finley asked Mr. Kamptner if erosion control requirements apply to individual landowners. Mr. Kamptner replied affirmatively. Mr. Finley asked if individual property owners are required to submit erosion control plans. Mr. Kelsey responded: "The State Erosion Control Regulations require an Erosion Control Permit on any disturbed area of 10,000 square feet or more. It doesn't matter if it is a developer or a single-family residence. Generally, with single-family residences, if it is the builder who is applying for the permit, we have an Erosion Control Agreement provided. If it is an Erosion Control Plan for a whole development, they submit a full blown plan for the whole thing. In this particular case, the limits of the clearing and grading showing on the Erosion Control Plan do include the lots. The Bond also includes the lots and, to be on the safe side, our Erosion Control Officer also got an Erosion Control Agreement form each builder on each lot. So we feel we've got the bases covered." Mr. Kelsey said, in this particular case, the Erosion Control Officer has been dealing specifically with the builder in an attempt to get him to work out the problem first. But, in the long run, if things °�. aren't worked out, we've still got it covered under the Erosion Control Plan." Ms. Huckle asked who is responsible for the engineering of the roads in this type of development. Mr. Kelsey explained that the developer pays an engineer to design the roads and the developer then hires a contractor to construct the roads. Ms. Huckle said: "So if the drainage from the roads is inadequate, it is the responsibility of the developer." Mr. Kelsey replied affirmatively. Mr. Steve Driver, an engineer for the project, addressed the Commission. He distributed to the Commission information which explained the differences between bi- attached housing, duplexes and townhouses. He explained this proposal is for single- family lots to be developed with manor homes which is "single-family bi-attached." It is "one dwelling unit on a single-family lot which is attached by a common wall." (It was later clarified that the common wall sits on the property line between two single-family lots.) He said this type of dwelling is different from a townhouse. He said the term townhouse is one which is used by the National Association of Homebuilders to describe a type of single-family attached housing that occurs in rows with several units, with one or more walls attached. The developer, in this proposal, is proposing the use of 74 single-family lots to be developed with manor homes. A manor home, by definition, is a "single-family bi-attached unit." In conclusion, Mr. Driver said his firm (McKee/Carson) did not provide construction observation or inspection services for the M overall construction or individual lot construction of Lake Reynovia and consequently 14%W cannot respond to specific questions in that regard. The applicant displayed a scale version of the manor homes which are proposed. The homes were described as being 2,100 sq. feet ($140,000) and 1,800 square feet ($129,000). Mr. Tony Nichols, the developer of the property, addressed the Commission. He apologized to the residents of Lake Reynovia for not having informed them of the current plans. He stressed that the quicker the development can be completed, the sooner the entire site can be stabilized and the erosion problems corrected. Mr. Harris, a resident of Lake Reynovia, was allowed to addressed the Commission. He disagreed with Mr. Kelsey's position that "the health, safety and welfare of my children are not in danger as the result of having 2 feet of water in my front yard." Referring to having a silt trap in his front yard, he said: "If this the best the County can do in terms of Erosion Control, I seriously suggest we explore other alternatives in terms of improving the kind of competency and services that landowners need to have their pecuniary and property interests protected." He said the Planning Commission has the authority to address both the technical aspects and the human aspects (protection of the health, safety and welfare of citizens) of a proposal. He said the developer has only addressed the technical aspects of this proposal and, in that respect, has not met the requirements that were placed on them in terms of the drainage and Erosion Control Plan. Mr. Harris again pointed out that the 1989 approval had a condition attached requiring site plan approval for townhouses, prior to approval of a subdivision plat. He felt the manor homes proposed fall under the definition of townhouse, which he described as "anything that is connected by a common wall." He felt the Commission should uphold the condition that was placed on the 1989 approval and require a site plan prior to the approval of this request. Mr. Finley asked what type of information Mr. Harris expects would be included on a site plan that is not included with a subdivision approval. Mr. Harris agreed that a site plan would "mirror" some of the requirements of a subdivision approval. Mr. Harris concluded: "I think the important thing is that this body remember that it has already issued a statement that a site approval for townhouses would be required before future development could be approved and the issue, therefore, is whether this model of what is to be constructed in Lake Reynovia meets a definition of townhouse --which is two units joined by a common wall --or whether this body is ready now to say that two units joined by a common wall is not a townhouse and that you have to have three units or something else." Mr. Keeler explained that in a subdivision plat the property lines are shown whereas in a site plan the location of the buildings would be provided, and those would be subject to minor modification. He said "all other regulations are virtually the same." Mr. 140.- Nitchmann asked Mr. Keeler what he felt the intent of the previous Commission had j � q been with the requirement of a site plan for townhouses prior to approval of a *AW subdivision plat review. Mr. Keeler responded: "I wrote that report and I wrote that condition. As I explained last week, normally with a townhouse development a site plan is presented because it is the practical way to do it. I can't say what was in the Planning Commissioners' minds. I have looked at the minutes and I don't believe that condition was actually discussed. I think the intent of the condition is that there be a preliminary approval and that is what you have before you, a preliminary subdivision plat. Mr. Keeler added that the basic different between townhouses, where there are several units within one structure built to a common wall, and two-family, side -by -side development is there is almost always open space involved in townhouse developments and that is not necessarily the case with two-family development because those units will have side yards. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said one of the issues to be addressed is the requirement of the 1989 Commission that there be a site plan approved for townhouses prior to subdivision plat approval for townhouses. Given the way the Ordinance is worded, Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Kamptner: "Can we, because of the Commission's action in 1989, require a site plan for this?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "I don't believe so simply for the reason that what is proposed here is not a townhouse for the purposes of this condition. The historical context of this particular condition was that site plans were generally required for townhouses and not required for duplexes. The proposal that is before you tonight is consistent with the County's definition of a duplex and there is a distinction between the two." Ms. Huckle thought this situation was similar to one reviewed by the Commission a few weeks back when an applicant was proposing changes that were in opposition to the proffers which were attached to a piece of property by a former developer. Mr. Nitchmann said he feels this proposal is "more subjective" and no changes to proffers are proposed here. He said he thinks the main concern of the neighbors is the fact that they were not told that townhouses would be a part of this development "and they are rebelling against that." He said, however, that this particular area of the development has been shown and approved for other than single-family homes from the beginning. The 1989 Commission was aware that this area would not be developed with single-family detached homes. Regarding drainage concerns, he said he feels those problems need to be addressed but he pointed out that the County holds a bond which will ensure that proper measures are taken to correct problems. He said the development of this part of the property will have very little impact on the drainage problems which already exist. Regarding the question of "what's a townhouse and what's a duplex," he said "that is a complex issue which we could probably argue to 2 or 3 days." He said he sympathized with homeowners who feel they were misled by the previous developer, but "there is nothing the Planning Commission can do to change that." Ms. Huckle said she had been shown a plan which had been given to a homeowner by the previous developer and it had shown this area as for "future development." No mention of townhouses was made. Mr. Nitchmann responded: "That may be, but that's for a court of law. It is not within this body's realm and responsibility to try to correct that nor is it the government's responsibility to make sure that everything in the world goes the way everyone would like for it to." Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "It boils down to whether or not this is a health, safety and welfare matter." Ms. Huckle wondered if "we shouldn't make sure that these problems get corrected before we approve other development." Given the fact that there will be "at least some potential impact by the new construction and because of existing problems with erosion areas, Mr. Loewenstein wondered if a condition could be attached to this approval which would require the "timely resolution of the problem which exists already and guaranteeing that those problems won't be exacerbated by new work." Mr. Kamptner responded: "That could be done if there were a connection between this particular application and the existing drainage problems." Mr. Kamptner suggested that condition No. 4 could possibly be modified, especially "considering the fact that 1.5 acres of this proposed area will be draining into an existing drainage area and that the Engineering Department consider that when reviewing the plan." Mr. Finley pointed out: "That's where the responsibility rests, with the Erosion Control Officer and the County staff. I don't think it rests with the Commission." Mr. Loewenstein explained his position: "If the new construction were to worsen an existing situation, that might, in fact, be a threat to public health and safety and would fall within our purview." Mr. Kamptner agreed that it does sound as if there is a connection between the 1.5 acres and the existing situation. No objections were raised to addition of a condition as suggested by Mr. Loewenstein. After several attempts were made at wording for the condition, Mr. Kamptner suggested the following sentence be added to condition No. 4: "All adequate erosion and sediment control devices, including devices located off site which will serve the subdivision, shall be installed prior to grading. " Given the history or erosion and drainage problems at this development Mr. Tice wondered if the additional information that would be included with a site plan, in terms of location of grading and landscape plans, would "enable the Commission to become more comfortable with whether, in fact, the same kinds of erosion and drainage problems are going to occur from the site or whether they have been adequately 196 addressed." He said: "In light of the fact that the 1989 Commission made a condition for site plan approval, it seems to me, because of the history of problems that have been on the site, it would be prudent, in our case, to stand by those conditions and say we want to see the site plan to be sure that these drainage issues are addressed." Mr. Finley said the Erosion Control Plan would be required in any event because it is a separate document from the site plan. Mr. Keeler did not think a landscape plan would be required for this site because no large parking area is envisioned. Based on the model displayed for the Commission, Mr. Nitchmann said he felt this proposal is a much better plan than many townhouse developments. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved that the Lake Reynovia Manor Homes Preliminary Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final plat for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: 1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final public road plans. A driveway/parking detail must be provided to insure adequate access and off-street parking for each lot. 3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final public road plans and drainage computations, including improvements within existing right-of-way. If a rural street cross-section is proposed, joint use access is strongly recommended. Waterline crossings should be perpendicular to centerline and sewer manholes should be set back. 4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan. All adequate erosion and sediment control devices, including devices located off site which will serve the subdivision, shall be installed prior to grading. 5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of detention plans and computations. 6. Roads built and/or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans. 7. Water Resource Manager's approval of the WRPA buffer limits. 8. Planning Department approval of proposed street names. 9. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans and verification that previous completed phases of Reynovia have been dedicated and accepted. 10. Inspections Department approval of fire hydrant locations and verification of adequate fire flow. 11. The final plat shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. [NOTE: This condition was added later.] Ms. Washington seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle said she could not support the motion. She felt all the deficiencies which already exist should be corrected before approval is given, "since this is directly related to health and safety issues." She agreed with those neighbors who feel it is very dangerous to have 2 feet of water in yards where small children are present. She felt a site plan should first be reviewed, as stated in the 1989 condition. Mr. Finley pointed out that the development will never be fully stabilized until all construction has stopped and the project is complete. Referring to Ms. Huckle's statement, Mr. Nitchmann asked if the safety issue was a legal reason for denial. Mr. Kamptner responded: "The Subdivision Ordinance allows a final plat to be denied for health and safety reasons. The same provision does not appear in the preliminary plat part of the Subdivision Ordinance. Once this is approved, the applicant still needs to come forward with a final plat (and) if you find that there is a health and safety problem at that time and there is evidence to support it, then you may deny the subdivision at that time." Ms. Huckle suggested that the Commission review the final plat. It was agreed Commission review of the final plat would be added to the conditions of approval. Mr. Tice asked if the belief that approval of a site plan was needed prior to approval of the subdivision plat (as stated in the 1989 approval) was a legitimate reason for denial. Mr. Kamptner responded: "If you find that what they are proposing are townhouses. I think staff has determined that these are duplexes and this particular proposal satisfies the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the existing zoning for the property." Mr. Tice asked: "Are you changing your advice last week that, legally, duplexes are townhouses?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "I still think --and we have discussed this with staff this week --that duplexes, if they meet certain requirements, are a subset of townhouses. But looking at this condition and looking at the historical context, there is a distinction between duplexes and townhouses and, based on what Mr. Keeler has said (that the reason for requiring that) townhouses obtain site plan approval is because of the problems with aligning the individual units with the lot lines .... (sentence incomplete.)" Mr. Nitchmann asked if the developer would consider submitting a site plan first, even though it may not be required. Mr. Rainer said submitting a site plan first would make sense if the developer was going to do the building. But, in this case, the developer is probably not going to do the building. "He needs to convey the property to the builders and he needs a subdivision plat to do that. It doesn't make any sense, in this case, to do a site plan and then come back and do a subdivision plat." Regarding the concerns that have been expressed by the Commission, Mr. Rainer said "there is nothing you could learn from a site plan different from what you have here." He said it would be an academic exercise which would be of no benefit to the Commission and would delay the development which means the completion of construction and final stabilization of the site would also be delayed. Mr. Tice asked if there was any further "tightening up" of the existing Erosion Plan which the County could do to "emphasize that we want stronger maintenance and provisions to ensure that the kind of incidents that have just taken place don't occur again. Mr. Nitchmann thought the way to do this would be to ask the County Executive to meet with the appropriate staff members and ask them to "spend more time" at sites to make sure these types of things do not occur in the future. He said the fact that the Commission has asked for review of the final plat "sends a clear message that if it's not done right, when you come back here your chances of moving forward are slim to none." Mr. Nitchmann said that regardless of what happens with the erosion control issue, the Commission can do nothing to change the dwelling type to single-family detached dwellings. Mr. Finley said no Erosion Control Plans work perfectly all the time and until the project is completed, "you are never going to have a perfect site." The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Ms. Huckle said her vote was based on her concerns about health and safety. SP-96-16 Virginia Land Trust - Proposal to construct a golf course on approximately 1,236 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(4)]. Property, described as Tax Map 19, parcels 32, 32A, 32B and Tax Map 20, Parcel 6A1 is located between the Buffalo River/North Fork of the Rivanna River and Routes 664 and 743 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area ). 1 Mr. Fritz said the applicant was requesting that the item be indefinitely deferred. Public comment was invited. None was offered. (Ms. Karen Strickland asked that her presence at the meeting be noted. She deferred comment at this time.) MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP-96-16 for Virginia Land Trust be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 96-10 Ivy Motors Commons II - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA 88-14 to allow vacation of right-of-way. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 84E, is located on the north side of Route 250 approximately 500 feet west of Route 678 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. He explained that the purpose of the proposal was to "clean up the proffers" to reflect changes made in the plans for relocation of Route 678. A dedication of a portion of parcel 84A had been made on Tax Map 58 to accommodate relocation of Rt. 678. It has now been decided that a relocation of that road is not desirable, thus the necessity to amend the proffer. Staff recommended approval of the petition. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tim Michel. No offered to answer questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 96-10 for Ivy Motors Commons II be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 96-12 Forest Lakes Associates - Proposal to add approximately 120.6 acres of land currently zoned RA, Rural Areas to the Forest Lakes South PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property, described as Tax Map 46, parcel 97A1, and Tax Map 46135, Parcel 1, is located east of and adjacent to the existing Forest Lakes South Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of Hollymead. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that at the time the PUD was approved for Forest Lakes South, this property was removed from the proposal because part of the alignment for the Meadow Creek Parkway, as shown in the CAT Study, and the alignment shown in the County's Comprehensive Plan, ran through a portion of the property. Because that connector road alignment has now been removed from the plans, the applicant is seeking to add this property back into the development. The infrastructure improvements have already been completed so the review of the physical development of the property has not been included in this staff report. (The original staff report was attached for the Commission's information.) The report stated staffs position on the proposal: "Staff opinion is that this property would form a logical addition to the approved Forest Lakes South PUD. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the proposal consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 8.5.4 of the zoning ordinance and recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve ZMA 96-12 Forest Lakes Associates and accept the applicant's proffers." Staff also recommended three conditions on the special permit for the crossing of Powell Creek. The staff report explained how the General Conditions, which were agreed to by the County and the Developer at the time of the approval of the original rezoning, had been modified for this proposal. Staff endorsed the modifications to the General Conditions but asked that the Commission address specifically conditions GC 6(a) and GC 6(c). Both these conditions would allow for Planning Director discretion which is usually exercised by the Commission. GC 6(a) would "liberalize circumstances under which the Director of Planning and Community development could provide relief from secondary access requirements." GC 6(c) "would allow the Director of Planning and Community development to authorize usage of private roads, which is generally reserved to the Planning Commission." Referring to a recommendation in the staff report that the reservation of a 120-foot right-of-way for both a connection of this development to Meadow Creek Parkway and connection to areas north of the development be verified, through deed reference, for future home buyers in this area, Ms. Huckle asked why that recommendation is not �`"' included as one of the General Conditions. Mr. Keeler said that had not been included because Mr. Cilimberg had inserted that sentence into the report but had not been clear as to which property owners are referred to. He said the applicant is not opposed to including that as a proffer but he is waiting for clarification from Mr. Cilimberg. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He explained some of the history of the road reservations. Comments and information provided included the following: -- "Given the current alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway and the current design requirements of the parkway, primarily that it is not a limited access road, ... the best way to get through this property, it is decided a connection needs to be made through it, is to go along the alignment of Ashwood and to provide access south to connect to the Meadow Creek Parkway and then north beyond our property line. The reason I have included proffers 10 and 11 with time limits is explained in the letter. I don't have a problem with reserving 120 feet of right-of-way to connect Ashwood Blvd. south to the Parkway, forever. But what that implies and what is shown on the Master Plan is everything north of there, along Ashwood Blvd, up to where it reconnects with Ashwood Blvd. on the west side of Powell Creek would then be 120 feet of right-of-way. I would like not to provide 120 feet of right-of-way there unless the decision is made to extend it and connect this to the Parkway, because what that does is remove 4 acres from development potential. ... Relative to the connection north, that goes through Residential 19 on the map, I don't mind delaying the development of that area for a .� time, but we we will be finished with the development on that side of Powell Creek in about 2 years. ... That is the reason for those time frames, but we are open to adjusting those time frames." --Regarding a piece of property which was shown as a "white section" on the plan, and which is not owned by the applicant, Mr. Runkle explained that the access for the property is off Polo Grounds Road and the owner has indicated he would like to continue with that access. It is possible that the road will serve as a secondary, emergency access for this development. The only issue regarding this is whether or not the road should be gated. The owner prefers that it not be gated but has said he would accept it being gated if necessary. That property will also have access to Rt. 29 from Ashcroft Blvd. --Regarding items 6(a) and 6(c), he said they are the applicant's attempt to try to have increased densities. He explained: "The 50-lot rule is somewhat arbitrary and tends to reduce potential density in some situations. So we would like some flexibility in dealing with that. The private road issue (is related to) the fact that the cluster -type development that can be found in other areas can only be achieved with the use of private roads or maybe could be achieved by submitting a detached -lot development as a site plan, which is not typically done. This would possibly allow the creation of parking bays off private roads which would potentially allow that type of cluster development." He concluded: So I am not sure that [6(c)] is necessary in the sense that we could probably submit some of these things as site plans, though that is not typically the way it is done." --He said the applicant would have no objection to deed references related to potential through roads, but he asked only that it be "as specific as possible." He asked that the Commission be very clear in terms of "who specifically you want us to tell." (Mr. Nitchmann said: "Tell everybody.") --The density of 800 is proposed because, "given the product mix, we can't achieve any greater density than that." He said also that 800 is the number at which divided highways become necessary. --He anticipated the buildout time frame, for the property east of Powell Creek, to be approximately 2-3 years. Ms. Huckle, referring to GC 5, asked how the term "incidental" is defined in relation to critical slopes. For items 6(a) and 6(c) she said she worried about whether or not giving "blanket endorsement" to the Director of Planning on items which usually require Commission approval could set a precedent for future requests from other developers. Mr. Kamptner responded: "I think another developer could argue that the precedent has been set, but I think you still have the discretion to do what is proposed in condition 6(c).... I don't think it binds you to authorize a similar type of condition in subsequent applications. For clarification, Mr. Runkle asked: "In today's regulatory environment, could I submit, instead of a subdivision plan, a site plan for detached lots that was private roads and had parking bays as part of that private road system and could it be approved that way?" Mr. Keeler responded: "I think if you submitted detached, showing parking .- bays, the staff would likely support that based on one of the 5 specific cases where private roads are allowed in the Ordinance, i.e. multi -family housing and attached *aw housing as townhouses, because their parking is in bays and in order to meet VDOT standards, you can't back out into the road. You have to have a commercial entrance; the parking bays have to be, basically, parking lots set off the road, and you use a lot of developable land between the road and the parking areas. That is why single-family attached units are specifically eligible for private road approval." Regarding GC 6(a), Ms. Huckle asked if it meant that each one of the individual neighborhoods within Forest Lakes would have to have a secondary means of access. Mr. Runkle said, theoretically, for any subdivision plan of more than 50 lots, "the potential exists that a second entrance will be required." He said it has been his experience that some secondary entrances are not used, except for emergency access. Mr. Runkle explained that the reasons for 6(a) and 6(c) is "because of the emphasis on increased utilization of growth areas and increasing density in growth areas." He said: "These are two minor steps toward that goal." Ms. Huckle again expressed concern about precedent. She said she would not want there to be "blanket control" in all cases. Mr. Kamptner again addressed the precedent question: "You won't be binding yourselves by accepting this condition here. Certainly subsequent applicants will make that argument, but (sentence incomplete). Don't bind yourselves to future applications." 440, Noting that the staff report states that some of the terminology in 6(a) "is somewhat vague and could lead to dispute," Mr. Loewenstein said he interpreted this as meaning that staff was recommending that the Commission give careful consideration to whether or not it should endorse that condition. Mr. Keeler said he did not think 6(a) would present a problem if the language were more definitive. He pointed out there is language in the Site Plan Ordinance which anticipates waivers under certain circumstances. He said: "The more you operate out of established language that you have, the better off you are." Mr. Runkle pointed out that the Director of Planning can always, in the event of a dispute, bring a matter before the Commission for review. Mr. Don Franco, the applicant's engineer, addressed the question raised earlier about the definition of "incidental." He gave examples of items which would be considered "incidental." He said the Ordinance uses USGS standards for contour intervals. Mr. Keeler said the introductory language to Section 4.2 (Critical Slopes) talks about using the USGS map or such other topography as is acceptable to the County Engineer. Mr. Keeler said, "What they are doing here is defining it in terms of this particular plan." Public comment was invited. In Mr. Charles Tractor, representing the Woodbrook neighborhood, addressed the Commission. Though he did not oppose the plan, he pointed out some disadvantages, such as overtaxing of the infrastructure --roads, utilities and, especially, the school system. He pointed out that the three elementary schools in this area are already overcrowded. He noted favorable aspects of the proposal, including protection of the rural areas by expansion of the urban ring, and the completion of the Forest Lakes community as was originally envisioned. He asked that the County do careful planning before allowing any more growth in this area. He hoped there would be more cooperation between developers and the County to lessen the impact to infrastructure in the future. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding 6(a) and 6(c) which give the Planning Director the authority to approve items which usually require Commission approval, Ms. Huckle said if those conditions are accepted, she hoped it could be made clear that it applies to this application only. Mr. Finley asked why this would be allowed for this project only. He said he had no problem with the request, but he wondered: "Next time if an applicant wants to include this, what right would we have to say "no." Ms. Washington said it was her understanding, based on the County Attorney's comments, that the Commission could approve items 6(a) and 6(c) if it so desired and that it would not bind the Commission in terms of other requests. Ms. Huckle said that court arguments can be based on the finding that an action was "arbitrary and capricious" if it is allowed in one instance and not in another. Mr. Nitchmann said the applicant has stated items 6(a) and (c) are not absolutely necessary, though they are desirable. Mr. Loewenstein shared Ms. Huckle's concern about precedent. He supported the project, but said he saw "no compelling reason to make that kind of exception in this case." It was clarified that disallowing item 6(c) would in no way effect the applicant's right to request private roads for neighborhoods with either attached or detached housing types. Mr. Keeler pointed out that only issue related to items 6(a) and (c) is who will be doing the review --the Commission or the Director of Planning. He did not think the applicant had voiced any objection to Commission review. Mr. Nitchmann wondered how the Commission could change wording in a proffer. It was clarified that items 6(a) and (c) are General Conditions which were agreed to in one of the applicant's proffers. The General Conditions are not actual proffers themselves. Mr. Runkle said the applicant was willing to change the General Conditions to say these items would be reviewed by the Commission instead of the Director of Planning. It was determined there were no concerns about item 6(a) which was related to an *#A, emergency access, so the change would be needed for 6(c) only. There was a brief discussion of GC 5, which contained the term "incidental" in relation to critical slopes. Mr. Tice pointed out that the term is defined in the Ordinance. He quoted: "Areas of 25% slope or greater have been identified based on current USGS topographic maps. Additional areas, which may be identified during final design, will be considered incidental." He said he considered this to be a definition. No other concerns were expressed about this condition. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that ZMA 96-12 for Forest Lakes Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, and subject to the General Conditions agreed upon between the applicant and the County, with a change in General Condition 6(c) to require Commission approval. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA 96-01 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: amend section 4.15.3, definition of public sign; amend section 31.2.4.2, review period for special use permit application; add section 31.2.4.2.1, limitation on filing new special use permit application after original denial; add section 31.2.4.2.2, withdrawal of special use permit application; amend section 33.7, withdrawal of petition for zoning map amendment; amend section 33.8, posting notice of hearing on zoning map amendment or special use permit on property by zoning administrator; amend section 33.8.1, posting notice of planning commission hearing on property by zoning administrator, repeal section 33.8.2, posting notice of board of supervisors hearing on property; add section 33.8.2, validation of prior notice requirements; amend section 33.8.3, maintenance and removal of signs. Mr. Keeler explained this amendment, dealing with the posting of signs for rezonings and special permits, has been proposed because of problems which have occured with the current policy of requiring that applicants post public notice signs on property. This amendment will now shift this responsibility to County staff. The main concern discussed by the Commission was with item 37.2.4.2.1 which states that "the same petition shall not be reconsidered within 12 months of the date of denial." Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about this restriction and asked where this 12 month period had originated. He feared this could have a negative impact on infill development. He said this restriction would seem to apply to any application, regardless of the reason for denial. Mr. Finley also expressed concern about this 12 month period. Mr. Keeler noted that this applies only to petitions which are denied. It does not prevent an applicant from requesting that an item be deferred so that issues raised by the Commission may be addressed, thus possibly avoiding a denial. Mr. Finley said this should make the Commission think more seriously about denials. Mr. %WW Kamptner pointed out that this applies only to the final action on an item, i.e. the action taken by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keeler explained that this language already exists in the Ordinance in relation to rezoning petitions. It has been added here to apply to special permits also. He said he thought the language is taken from the Code of Virginia. Mr. Nitchmann said that he was satisfied that the Board would see his concerns when they read the minutes. He said he hopes this will be "studied closely before we put it to law." He proposed no changes to the proposed amendment. Mr. Nitchmann also questioned Section 31.2.4.2.2 which says that written withdrawal of an application will be accepted at any time "prior to the beginning of consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda." He wondered if there should be at least a 24-hour requirement. Mr. Nitchmann said withdrawals often cause inconvenience to the public because they cannot be notified of the withdrawal and show up at a meeting in expectation that an item will be heard. Mr. Keeler pointed out that this applies to a request for a complete withdrawal of an application, not a request for a deferral. He said it has been the Commission's policy to allow public comment on deferred items when the request for deferral was received too late for the public to be notified of the deferral. Referring to this same section which says that the Commission may waive the 12-month time restriction for re -submission of a withdrawn application, Mr. Finley %MW asked, "What would prompt the Commission to determine that the 12-month requirement doesn't apply?" Mr. Kamptner said it would probably depend on the applicant's reason for withdrawal. Mr. Nitchmann said he hoped the Board would consider the 12-month restriction carefully before taking action to approve the amendment. He feared this could hamper the County's desire to encourage infill development. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that ZTA 96-01 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as set forth in the staff report dated June 18, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. �1 , n M- I V. Wavnd Cilimb