HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 15 1996 PC Minutes10-15-96
OCTOBER 15, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 15, 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. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr.
William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy
Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete
Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioner Tice.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of October 1, 1996 were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the October 9th Board of
Supervisors Meeting.
ZMA-96-13 Pavilion at Riverbend, L.L.C. - Petition to rezone approximately 36 acres
from C-1, Commercial to PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 78, parcels 15C 1 and 17A is located between the Riverbend
Shopping Center and the Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area
is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 3. Deferred from the
September 24, 1996 Commission meeting.
AND
SP-96-21 Pavilion at Riverbend, L.L.C. - Proposal to establish an outdoor
amphitheater on approximately 36 acres zoned C-1, Commercial. Property, described
as tax Map 78, Parcels 15C1 and 17A is located between the Riverbend Shopping
Center and the Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is
recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 3. Deferred from the
September 24, 1996 Commission meeting.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral of both items.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that ZMA-96-13 and SP-96-21,
the Pavilion at Riverbend, be deferred indefinitely. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP - 96-088 Woodgate Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 48 apartment
units on 4.49 acres zoned R-10 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 61,
Parcel 21, is located on the East side of Hydraulic Road just South of Roslyn Heights
Road in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Urban Density
Residential (6-34 dwelling units per acre), in Neighborhood 1.
q�
10-15-96 2
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. He said the proposal meets all the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, but is before the Commission because of
concerns raised by Birnam Wood residents. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. [NOTE: Mr. Shepherd deleted condition 1(i) which he said would only be
applicable in an industrial area. The condition had been included in error.]
Mr. Shepherd explained the applicant has voluntarily offered the following revisions
which address neighbors' concerns:
--The area which will remain wooded is that area behind the apartment building,
adjacent to Birnam Wood. This buffer will vary in width from 40 to 60 feet.
--The sewer line has been shifted to the front of the building thus reducing the
amount of clearing that would have occurred between the two developments.
--The detention basin has been relocated away from Birnam Wood.
(Mr. Shepherd explained that a detention basin will not actually be required on this site
because it can be served by a regional detention basin which has been proposed.)
Mr. Shepherd said he believes the revisions made have satisfied the concerns of the
Birnam Wood neighbors although there has been a request for screening, in addition
to the wooded buffer, from the Secretary of the Birnam Wood Homeowners
Association Because there is no basis for requiring screening between residential
uses staff has not recommended additional screening. Mr. Shepherd said this
proposal exceeds buffering and setback requirements "dramatically."
Ms. Huckle asked about the status of a regional detention basin. Mr. Shepherd said
some property owners in this area have contributed to a regional basin, but he could
not offer further information. Mr. Cilimberg said a regional basin is a CIP project, but
he could not recall the timeframe for the project. He confirmed that other developers
in this area have been required to contribute to a regional basin rather than providing
on -site detention. Ms. Huckle asked how stormwater will be handled until the basin is
constructed. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the developer will have to provide soil erosion
control measures during construction. He added that this is not the first project in a
regional basin area and "we don't hold projects hostage if they are going to pay the
fee for the regional basin." The Engineering Department recommends that a
contribution be required for the regional basin, rather than requiring on -site detention.
Mr. Shepherd said the Engineering Department has requested that condition 1(e) be
amended to read: "...County Engineering receipt of a pro rata share of a contribution
for the proposed Birnam regional stormwater basin." [NOTE: Condition 1(e) was
amended later in the meeting but with slightly different language.] It was clarified that
the applicant would be required to do only one of the two options, i.e. either provide
on -site detention OR contribute to a regional basin. He will not be required to do both.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for further information on the relocation of the recreation area,
�-- so as to avoid the sewer easement. The applicant's representative later answered this
question and said there are no problems with moving the recreation area away from
the sewer easement.
77
10-15-96 3
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He expressed some
puzzlement as to why this item is before the Commission, given the fact that it is a by -
right development and meets all the requirements of the Ordinance. The applicant
has responded to all the concerns of the Birnam Wood residents and has (1) moved
the sewer line; (2) provided more buffer; and (3) moved the detention basin. He said
the applicant was willing to do either of the stormwater options.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the ultimate destination of the runoff from
this property, Mr. Muncaster said it crosses under Rt. 29 (in the location of the old
Pizza Inn) and goes to the Meadow Creek basin. Ms. Huckle was concerned about
the ability of the "east side of Rt. 29 to handle all this water." She suggested that
condition 1(i) state both options, with the final decision being left to the Engineering
Department based on what is best for the region.
Mr. Cilimberg recalled that even though the Birnam basin is in the CIP, he believes it
is envisioned that it will be built "when Greenbrier Drive is connected through," which
is scheduled to take place in the late 90's.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Booterbach, a resident of Birnam Wood, addressed the Commission. His
concern was related to the possible location of another detention basin so close to his
home. He was glad the applicant has offered to relocate the basin. He described
problems with frog noise which he currently experiences as the result of an existing
detention basin to the east of his property. He hoped an on -site basin would not be
required.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Woodgate Preliminary
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept the final site plan for signature until
tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan
shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
a. Planning Department approval of landscape plan to include parking lot
landscaping [32.7.9.7L screening [32,9.7.8] and Conservation Plan for the wooded
area that is to be maintained;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
c. Fire Official approval.
d. Building Official approval of barrier free parking spaces and curb cuts.
e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
computations or payment of pro rata share of fees for regional detention basin.
f. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a copy and proof of recordation of a
County standard Stormwater management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement.
g. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan.
10-15-96 4
" h. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final grading and drainage plans
and computations. Grading will need to be adjusted to convey runoff along the edge
of the travelway or face of curb.
i. VDOT approval of right-of-way improvement.
The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION - Mountain Protection Plan
The topic of the work session was potential lighting regulations. The Mountain
Protection Committee, in its report, was recommending that all lighting above 5,000
lumens be shielded.
Ms. Scala introduced Mr. lanna (a UVA Professor of Astronomy) who gave a
demonstration of different levels of lighting and how shielding effects each level. It
was his recommendation that the lumen level should be even less than recommended
by the Committee--i.e., anything above 4,000 lumens should be shielded, and
possibly even less, at 3,000 and above. (Ms. Scala recalled the Committee's
recommendation had been based on a study of other areas' regulations. She did not
think the Committee was wedded to the 5,000 lumens.)
Comments of the Commission included the following:
--Ms. Huckle asked if the County can require that all outdoor lighting be of a
certain type. Mr. Kamptner said he believes that can be done under the Zoning
enabling legislation, provided it is consistent with the Building Code. Mr. Dotson said:
"But that doesn't mean that all existing lights, within a certain time, must be
converted." Mr. Kamptner responded: "I understand we are asking for enabling
legislation to have the power to regulate outdoor lighting outside of the zoning power
so we can apply it for all outdoor lighting instead of just prospectively." Mr. lanna
noted there is a State statute which allows lighting to be regulated within 112 mile of
an observatory. Mr. Cilimberg said that any existing lighting will be nonconforming,
but if replaced will have to meet ordinance requirements if lumens are increased.
There was some question as to whether or not an existing fixture (which is greater
than 5,000 lumens) could be replaced with the same non -conforming lumens.
--Mr. Nitchmann said he favors a lighting ordinance and a shielded fixture.
However, he is not yet ready to make a recommendation as to maximum lumens.
Before making that decision he cautioned that careful thought must be given to the
safety of county citizens. He suggested that information be obtained from other areas
as to how they had arrived at a 5,000 lumen maximum.
--Ms. Huckle said regardless of the final decision on number of allowable
lumens, it is very important that they be shielded.
--Mr. Loewenstein asked if staff might be able to obtain information on types of
lighting on various projects which already exist locally. Mr. Dotson said a map would
be useful so that Commissioners could conduct a "self -guided tour."
%q
10-15-96 5
1 44.1 --Mr. Dotson said it would be helpful to know if there is a manufacturer who will
be able to provide the hardware for whatever lumens are finally decided upon. Mr.
Nitchmann suggested contacting GE.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, a member of the County's Architectural Review Board, said the
ARB has always addressed the issue of lighting. Almost all commercial development
which is occurring today must be reviewed by the ARB. The ARB has uniformly
required that all exterior lighting be shielded.
It was staffs recommendation that those items listed in the Mountain Committee's
report as "Additional Planning Tools" (such as TDR's and PDR's) be included in
Comprehensive Plan discussions of the Rural Areas which are to begin soon. The
Commission had no objections to this recommendation.
Public comment:
Dr. John Ellett - He cautioned that "conservation costs money." He said it
would be unfair to those people whose land will be effected by this ordinance to not
address the costs of "what you're asking them to do --to give up (the value of their
property), --without some form of compensation." Mr. Ellett referred specifically to
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
programs. He felt these are the "backbone to achieving the desired goals" of this
' proposed ordinance and should not be discussed at some later time, as suggested by
staff.
Mr. Gerald Fisher - He expressed concern about the definition of "ridge,"
explaining that he was having a real problem understanding how this will apply to the
property which he is currently responsible for (his mother's estate). He felt the 16%
maximum grade for driveways was "extreme and not justified for a private driveway."
He supported the use of existing roads and trails when possible and the use of
"multiple lot driveways."
Mr. David Wood - He repeated comments he had made at a previous work
session related primarily to the recommended elevation levels. He again expressed
the feeling that the levels proposed are "too intrusive on the rights of property
owners." He felt existing regulations, which prevent building on slopes of greater than
25%, are sufficient protection.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom - He addressed a question which had been raised at the
previous work session which was related to how the proposed regulations will effect
the "value of a deduction for a conservation easement." He said appraisers, when
assessing the value of a conservation easement (i.e. the value of the property before
the easement), they look at properties which are comparably zoned and situated.
They don't look at the development potential of the land. "So you can see that the
value issue is highly individualized. Each parcel is going to be looked at differently.
Even if this were a much different ordinance than is being proposed, it would not be
possible to say, as a blanket issue, that it is going to do this or that to a conservation
.A
10-15-96 6
easement's deductibility. However, because this proposed ordinance, as I understand
it, really does not take away development rights --it leaves the development rights in
tact (though) it may suggest where they can be used --I don't think this ordinance is
likely to make much of a difference for most parcels that would be likely to be involved
in a conservation easement simply because it is the development right as a gross
factor that is going to be considered in looking at comparables. Now if you have a
parcel and the most significant value in that parcel is land that is above a contour and
you are required to shift your development rights below that, that certainly may have
an effect upon how much you would be able to deduct because the restriction of the
regulation will effect, to some extent, the fair market value of that land. So the before
value may not be quite as high. However, in most cases where ridgetop development
is a serious feature in terms of the value of the land, the cost of realizing that is going
to detract rather significantly from the fair market value of that component of a
property. If you are an end developer --you are the person who bought the land, built
the roads and marketed the lots --that's different. But most easement donors, in fact
almost no easement donors, are end developers. They are rural landowners who will
sell, basically wholesale, to a retail developer. The retail developer is the one who is
most likely to realize that extra component of value. That is not something that is
looked at in a normal easement appraisal. So this is a long way of saying even if you
have very desirable ridgetop development potential, because of the cost it is going to
take to realize that potential, the value, in terms of the effect of the easement, is not
likely to be significant and, in most cases, it is not going to be relevant at all simply
because shifting the development rights around on a parcel is not going to significantly
effect the before -easement market value." He concluded that each individual parcel
must be looked at separately and "since the ordinance is not effecting the number of
development rights that are available, I don't think you going to find a significant
change in the deductibility factor for people who are willing to donate conservation
easements." Mr. Lindstrom ended his comments by saying that he owns mountain
land which is almost entirely above the 700 foot contour in the Southwest Mountains.
He estimated 75% of his net value is in that land which is above the 700 foot contour.
He said he was happy to forego the ability to develop on the top of the mountain in
exchange for the benefit that the surrounding mountains will be similarly restricted.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Lindstrom if he feels the limitations on building above the
contour line will increase the value of the property which is below the contour line. Mr.
Lindstrom responded: "It could if you look at it this way.... If I were to sell lots, I think
it is possible that the people who would be in the market for those lots would be more
inclined to pay more knowing that the ridge above is protected, than they would if they
knew the ridge above could be developed." Mr. Lindstrom added: "That is a
fundamental principle of tax law with respect to the valuation of conservation
easements. The Internal Revenue Service will offset the depreciation and the value of
your land by the appreciation and the value of adjoining land you may have which will
occur because of proximity to restricted land. That is called 'enhancement' and has
been a serious problem for landowners who put an easement on only part of their
land."
Public comment concluded with Mr. Lindstrom's remarks.
10-15-96 7
Ms. Scala said staff would like to move forward with the Mountaintop Overlay District
portion of the Committee's recommendations. In order to do that, she asked the
Commission to adopt a resolution of intent .
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein made the following motion: BE IT RESOLVED for
purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice,
the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to
consider an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by adding a Mountain Overlay
District as Section 30.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and to consider an amendment of
Chapter 18 of the County Code, Subdivision of Land as recommended in the Mountain
Protection Committee's Proposed Mountain Plan dated August 1, 1996. Ms.
Washington seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission decided another work session will be held on the actual Ordinance
language prior to scheduling for public hearing. Commissioners Finley and Nitchmann
expressed the hope that every effort will be made to make the public aware of this
proposed ordinance change before the final public hearing.
The Commission asked staff to prepare an easily understandable one -page statement
explaining the meaning of the proposed ordinance, specifically how it will impact those
" county residents who own mountain land.
-----------------------------------------
M
There being no further business, t meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
V-bJomk5:A'L
V. Wayrfe Cili rg, ecretary
q.2