HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 03 1995 PC Minutes1-3-95
JANUARY 3, 1995
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 3,
1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff,
Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials
present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established.
Election of Officers for 1995
Ms. Huckle opened the nonmations as follows: "I understand that there is some feeling
amongst the Planning Commission that the Chairmanship should rotate every year, and with
that understanding I would like to nominate Tom Blue for chairman." (There were no
comments on Ms. Huckle's statement.) Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. There were no
other nominations. Mr. Blue was unanimously elected to serve as Chairman for 1995.
Mr. Dotson moved that Ms. Imhoff be nominated for Vice Chair, Mr. Nitchmann seconded
*"r the motion. There were no other nominations. Ms. Imhoff was unanimously elected to serve
as Vice Chair for 1995.
Ms. Imhoff moved that Mr. Cilimberg be nominated for Secretary. Ms. Huckle seconded the
motion. There were no other nominations. Mr. Cilimberg was unanimously elected to serve
as Secretary for 1995.
Set Meeting Times, Days, Places for 1995
Mr. Nitchmann asked that consideration be given to reducing the number of meeting days to
three Tuesdays per month. There was no opposition to Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion though
there was some question as to whether or not it would be possible to reduce the number of
meetings during the Comp Plan review process. Staff was to review the schedule to try to
identify which three Tuesdays would be preferable. It was agreed that January would
continue as in the past with staff to try the new scheduling for February and March. If it is
found that all Tuesdays will be needed during the Comp Plan review, then the three Tuesdays
per month schedule could be instituted after the review is completed. (No formal action was
taken on this suggested change, but no opposition was expressed and several Commissioners
expressed support for Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion.)
Ms. Imhoff suggested that the three Tuesday schedule may work if work sessions are
scheduled from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on those same Tuesdays. This was her preference.
1-3-95
The meeting place and time remained the same - County Office Building, 7:00 p.m.
The minutes of the December 13, 1994, meeting were unaniously approved as submitted.
ZMA-94-14 Highlands West Land Trust a li ant),Lady B. Walton owner - Petition to
rezone approximately 120 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 93, is located on the south side of Route 240 approximately
0.4 miles west of the entrance to Highlands at Mechums River in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is recommended for Open Space and Industrial Service in the Community
of Crozet. Deferred from December 13, 1994 Commission Meeting,
Mr. Lilley distributed to the Commission copies of the applicant's proffers. NOTE: Staff had
received these proffers the day of the meeting.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff identified the following as being the two major
Comp Plan issues:
(1) The Comp Plan designates the northwest portion of the property (26 acres) for
industrial service. The applicant is requesting rezoning to Residential. The demand for
industrial in this area is not known and it is unclear at this time if the removal of this 26
acres would have a significant impact.
(2) The Comp Plan designates the remainder of the property as Open Space, "until an
evaluation of the value for _recreation area can be assessed." The Parks and Recreation
Department have commented that recreation provided with the development of this property
would relieve the burden on other recreation areas in Crozet. is Open Space appropriate for
this property?
Other issues are:
--The connector road between Rt. 240 and Rt. 250 (called for in the Comp Plan) is
shown in a somewhat different alignment, though it is a similar alignment. The applicant has
proferred to provide a right-of-way through the parcel for this connector road. Staff has
concerns about a major connector road passing through a residential development, essentially
"splitting the neighborhood." The applicant has proffered a "pedestrian crossing tunnel" under
a portion (the 2-lane portion, not the 4-lane portion) of the connector road to address this
concern.
--The entire development plan (as displayed before the Commission) is not being
proffered, but certain features are, i.e. the connector road, the pedestrian tunnel, a 50-foot
pathway on either side of the stream to connect with the Greenway system. It is the
applicant's plan to provide a clubhouse and pool, but that has not been proffered.
--The existing farmhouse and outbuildings are of some historic significance (as noted
in the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission and Survey). Staff recommends that
preservation of those be incorporated in part of the development plan. The proffers do not
provide for this.
1-3-95 3
--An impact study has not been done to determine the impact to public facilities,
including the anticipated revenue.
--At the subdivision stage, the applicant will be required to provide more right-of-way
to accommodate turn lanes on Rt. 240 (as will be required by VDOT)_
Ms. Huckle asked if staff knew why there has not been more development of industrial land
in Crozet. She wondered if it is partly because of concern about the use of the roads far
truck traffic. She wondered if a flater, straighter road might make the area more appealing
for industrial development. Staff could not answer Ms. Huckle"s question.
Ms. Imhoff asked if it was not typical to get a development plan on rezonings of this size."
(She repeated this concern throughout the discussion, and again on ZMA-94-06 for Upper
Pantops Land Trust, heard later in the meeting.) She explained it has been her experience, in
other areas, that a development plan would be presented, and would be accompanied by a
Comp Plan amendment. She asked staff to comment on Albemarle County's past policy in
this regard. Mr. Cilimberg responded: For larger scale re -zoning requests that had fairly
significant areas designated differently in the Plan than what was being requested, on those
we have urged a Comp Plan Amendment with the applicant. That was given as advice to this
applicant earlier in this process. In most cases, the Commission and Board have proceeded
first with a Camp Plan Amendment. That has been a more typical course. There have been
some exceptions to that.... But, typically, more often than not, changes to the Comp Plan
have been considered first when significant acreages are involved. In terms of having a plan
of development, or not having a plan of development, it has been mixed in its history. But I
do know that in the Comprehensive Plan, for more than 75 dwelling units, we have requested,
and the Comp Plan encourages, an overall plan of development. Again, that has not always
been the way the applications have been approved. I believe, as an example, the Highlands
River rezoning was just a straight R-4, with the number of dwelling units proffered."
Mr. Dotson asked: "Since we are in the midst of the Comp Plan Amendment process, would
it be possible for an applicant, such as this, to piggy -back on a process of reviewing land use
that will be undertaken in any case, particularly industrial land." Mr. Cilimberg replied:
"That is certainly possible. In my earliest conversations with the applicant about this area, I
indicated to the applicant that there would be an opportunity to seek a Comp Plan change as
part of the Comp Plan review, towards the ultimate rezoning that they would like to
accomplish here." Mr. Dotson: "So that wouldn't necessarily take a fee and a private
application to amend the Plan, but could be done as part of the overall review." Mr.
Cilimberg; "No, it would not. There is an amendment fee when it's out of the review
process.,"
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the location of the water and sewer lines in relation to this
property. Mr. Lilley was uncertain about the location, but he had verified with the ACSA
that adequate capacity is available to the site. Mr. Lilley believed there to be a water line
along Rt. 240. Mr. Blue believed the sewer line "went right through the property."
I-3-95 4
V" Wl Referring to the Crozet Community Study, Ms. Imhoff recalled that the deletion of the
connector road had been recommended. She said: "I wondered how this would play out. I
guess the connector road is still part of the Comp Plan; so, therefore it would be proffered.
But there is a chance that that is one of the changes you would see with the new Comp Flan
Amendment."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. His comments included the following:
--Addressing Ms. Imhoff s comment about the connector road: "I would very much
like to see that connector road deleted,"
--"My understanding from the Planning staff is that, with the modified proffers, they
will now recommend approval."
--The plan before the Commission shows eight neighborhoods, each cul-de-sac being a
separate neighborhood. "Our intent is to build a clubhouse and a swimming pool, using the
existing house as a clubhouse. We intend to build soccer fields; we intend to build that
pedestrian walkway. I'll build it across the entire 110-foot wide, if I know where it is."
--"I think it is important to direct growth into areas which have water and sewer."
--Justifications for this plan: It is in -fill in nature; adequate water and sewer are
available to the property; there is already adequate area presently zoned for industrial in the
Crozet area; this project will have a "significant impact on our goal of trying to direct growth
into the designated growth areas."
Mr. Craig's answers to Commission questions:
--"Are you thinking about submitting a development plan?" (Imhoff) ANSWER:
"Topo was flown about a week ago. When it has been received, we are. going to bring in
very detailed plans. But, it was my understanding this was the plan that was recommended.
It is very similar to Glenmore." Ms. Imhoff commented can the proffers. "Unless tied to a
specific plan submitted by the applicant, there is nothing that would tie you to doing this."
Mr. Craig said he was a little "gun shy," because he had spent $32,000 preparing a plan for a
previous development only to have it made "worthless" by the approval which was ultimately
given. He concluded: "We are prepared to get very detailed in accordance with the
Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance, but I think that shows the subdivision and what it
will look like. Believe me, there is plenty of regulation to control (the development)."
--"What was your reason for not pursuing a Comp Plan Amendment or for piggy-
backing on the Comp Plan process?" (Imhoff) ANSWER: "The staff is not accepting CPA's
ition, if we wait until the new Comp Plan is adopted, we're looking at
right now. In add
December, 1995. Then we would file a rezoning and then all the preliminary plat and final
plat submittals would follow. We're talking about not building until July 1996. That comes
back to the issue of whether we are given incentives to build in the growth areas, or are we
given incentives to build in the rural areas (where the process is much quicker). There are
many incentives to build in the rural areas, and I don't think that is correct."
--"Why have you not proffered the preservation of the existing house and outbuildings,
nor the construction of the playing fields, as you have said you are prepared to do?"
(Huckle) ANSWER: Adequate topo has not yet been prepared. "We have a good track
record of building good subdivisions; I don't think we have to show every detail."
1-3-95 V
" --"How will you know how to construct the railroad bridge which will be required to
access the property?" (Huckle) ANSWER: "The railroad has become very efficient and they
provide you with a very detailed booklet."
--Regarding access north of the railroad tracks, "The map doesn't show the off -site
portion to get to 240, but maybe you could explain how that happens and what your
responsibilities will be." (Dotson) ANSWER: "In our proffer, we have proffered to build
that all the way to 240, 110-foot wide (reservation), to provide for 4-lanes." He confirmed
that the applicant owns the property which would allow for this. (Mr. Cilimberg explained
that the applicant would build a "half section," 2 lanes, with the completion being done at
some future time by the State, the County, or another developer.) Mr. Craig confirmed that
the original proffer to complete the road to its ultimate design within 15 years had been
deleted at the request of staff. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the Crozet Study had
recommended that this be a 2-lane road with "curvatures that did not lend itself to a
racetrack." Mr. Jenkins expressed concern with a 110-foot width.
--"If your development was approved for residential and the rest of the industrial land
were not changed, do you feel that would make a compatible surrounding for the residential
you have proposed?" (Dotson) ANSWER: "I believe that area (pointed to by Mr. Dotson on
the plan) is designated industrial, but it is zoned R-1. I think we are all kidding outselves if
we think we are going to have a lot of industrial growth in Albemarle County. I just don't
see it."
--"Does your proposed residential land abut the property occupied by the truck depot?"
(Huckle) ANSWER: "It is close, but not contiguous."
Mr. Craig asked for comment from staff as to whether or not they support the request, with
the new proffers. (Mr. Blue said that question could be answered after public comment.)
Public comment was invited.
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed concern or opposition to the
proposal: Phil Unger (adjoining property owner on Rt. 250); Harold Spanour; Jim Eddins
(representing Preservation Piedmont); Scott Peyton; Tom Loach; and John Marston. Their
concerns were as follows:
--The proposal undercuts and undermines the existing Comp Plan and the ongoing
planning which has been taking place in Crozet.
--This is the only property shown for Open Space in the Crozet growth area.
--Residential areas should not be forced into industrial areas.
--Removing this industrial land might prevent Con -Agra from expanding if they wish
to do so at some future time..
-Why make this change at the "eleventh hour" when it should be considered along
with the Comp Plan review that is presently taking place?
--How will the connector road impact Mr. Spanour's access to the back of his farm.
--The historical significance of the Jarman-Cree House and its outbuildings must be
considered.
cm
1-3-95 6
Vftwl --Mr. Peyton expressed "passionate concern" about the conversion of rural property to
other uses. He was opposed to the request.
--Infrastructure (schools and roads) does not exist to support this additional residential
growth.
--There needs to be a better way to measure the impact of this type of development.
--There needs to be more community involvement in these types of decisions.
--Another pool is not needed in Crozet.
--The issue of affordable housing has not been addressed in this proposal.
--No additional residentially zoned land is needed in Crozet.
Mr. Craig was allowed to address the public comments. He offered to limit the development
of the property (at R-4) to 277 units. If the Commission was not inclined to rezone the
industrial area, he asked that consideration be given to rezoning the open space area for
residential units, leaving the area west of the "yellow" connector road as industrial.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Craig to comment on the possibility of including this request along with
the Comp Plan review presently taking place. Mr. Craig responded: "I think that may be
realistic for the industrial. I think it's pretty clear on the open space area that it would be
designated residential if the need for the recreational use is not there."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked if staff wished to make any change to its recommendation. Mr. Lilley
responded: The major sticking points in the staff report had to do with adequate provision
for the connector road and for some mechanism to interaction between the two developed
sides of that road. There was some concern expressed, still, about whether or not the historic
features might be able to be addressed in the development plan, etc. But in terms of the
development plan, we feel like the major concerns of the previous staff report are being
addressed by the revised proffers, with the understanding that the proffers are going to be
legally acceptable. We have not had a good chance to review them as of yet. Having said
that, with the understanding that there is still this issue of the industrial service land which
staff really didn't take a firm position on and is not in a position to have a real firm opinion
on at this time."
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Jenkins to comment on the Crozet Study's recommendation for the
connector road. Mr. Jenkins explained that the Study had recommended a less intense road.
He felt that recommendation was "proper."
Ms. Huckle asked if staff would feel more comfortable if the applicant had proffered the
preservation of the historic buildings and also the recreation area, as the applicant mentioned
in his comments. Mr. Lilley agreed staff had raised concerns about those two items. He felt
proffers "would help," in terms of what the Comp Plan calls for. Staff had not made an
significant issue of the historic aspects of the property because there is presently no ordinance
to address these issues. Mr. Keeler interjected: "I don't know that we would feel more
1-3-95 7
comfortable, one way or the other, but, with a proffer it is guaranteed, without a proffer, there
is no guarantee."
Ms. Imhoff felt the purpose of this meeting had been to hear from the applicant and the
public. She noted that the Commission has "sort of agreed that action on major rezonings
would not necessarily be taken at the same meeting. She stated that she is supportive of
putting growth in growth areas, where water and sewer, and community services are available.
However, she felt this was a "major Comp Plan amendment" and the following issues need to
be addressed further:
--The juxtaposition of residential to light industrial.
--The lack of buffering.
--The whole question of the connector road and how it plays in.
She did not feel there was enough information to justify proceeding with this request "in a
positive fashion. She felt that a Comp Plan Amendment should have preceded this request,
to be followed by a rezoning request, accompanied by a development plan.
Mr. Blue asked Ms. Imhoff how she felt about the connector road. Ms. Imhoff replied that it
had been her feeling, when reviewing the Crozet Study, that there was a need for some type
of road which will connect 240 to 250. She felt there was a good reason why the road has
been in the Comp Plan for a long time, though she did not know if it should be a four -lane
road. She also had asked staff, at that time, why the Open Space designation had been in
place for such a long time. After visiting the site, she wondered if it might be because of the
existence of the historic structures.
Ms. Huckle felt the construction of the connector road might result in there being more
interest in the development of the industrial property. She felt there were too many
unaswered questions for positive action at this time, i. e.:
--The number of units is not proffered.
--The questions of the bridge and the road have not been resolved.
--The preservation of the historic structures has not been proffered.
--The recreation area has not been proffered.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Davis to comment on whether or not a lack of a proffer was justification
for the Commission to delay action. Mr. Davis responded: "Proffers are voluntary conditions
which are proffered, but sometimes proffers can address inadequacies that might otherwise
exist in a rezoning so that it would be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with
good planning. To the extent that proffers can be offered voluntarily to address issues that the
Planning Commission may have, that would be appropriate if the applicant chooses to address
those issues."
Mr. Dotson stated that he had visited the site and felt it would make a good residential
neighborhood in terms of aesthetics and being a part of the Crozet Community. However, he
stated he felt the following questions still need to be addressed: Is this the only railroad
frontage industrial land in the County? Is that important, that is, is railroad frontage as
i-3-95
important today as it was in the past or might it be important again in the future? He
believed that may not be so important that Albemarle County have this type of land, so long
as the city or some of the other counties in the region have it. An assessment of our
industrial land is needed in terms of what we have and what we need, possibly to be followed
by a Comp Plan Amendment on this portion. During this period, the applicant could be
developing his plan ftukher with a more detailed topo map, and more information could be
gathered on the school question. He suggested that the county and the applicant could work
tits "parallel paths, not in opposition but not read to say 'yes' right flow."
Mr. Nitchmann described what appeared to him to be some main questions.-
Should this be part of the Comp Plan review which is currently in progress and may
end in 1995?
--Should action be delayed pending an inventory of the county's industrial land and
how this fits in? He felt; based on the information presented thus far, that this was probably
a good use of this land.
Mr. Nitchmann felt the request needed to be discussed further; after staff has been given
direction as to additional information which the Commission may desire. He felt the proposal
should be addressed by the Commission "with an open attitude and not view the Open Space
or RA recommendations in the Comp Plan as being cut in stone." He did not think staff
would support this requested change if they had not "thought through this process."
V" Ms. Vaughan expressed concern about the "eleventh hour" aspect of this proposal. She felt
good planning requires more consideration. She also felt staff had not had sufficient time to
review the new proffers. She wondered if the applicant had made this proposal known to the
Crozet Committee and sought their input.
Ms. Imhoff asked for more information on the following issues:
--How does this piece of industrial fit into the overall inventory?
--The concept of buffering residential to light industry.
--What is the water capacity in the area?
--What is planned as recreation`? Has the possibility of contributing to the existing
community pool renovations instead of building a second pool been considered?
--Does this proposal address the county's affordable housing issue?
--What is the plan for preservation of the existing house and the outbuildings?
M-An analysis of the connector road vs. local street..
--How many units are planned? What is the price range envisioned?
--Are cul-de-sac's suitable or would a grid network be preferable since the older area
of Crozet is more of a grid design?
Ms. Huckle added that an inventory of both the quantity and the quality of the industrial land
in the Crozet area would be helpful.
;�i
1-3-95 9
Mr. Nitchmann envisioned that the issues identified in Ms. Imhoff s list could be addressed by
staff in 2 or 3 weeks. He pointed out that staff has already given the issue a great deal of
thought. He felt the main issue was whether or not to require a 4-lane connector road, and
where will the money comae from to pay for this road?
Mr. Lilley reported that the applicant had indicated a preference for a denial rather than a
deferral. He was unclear as to the reason and suggested that the Commission might want to
seek further comment from the applicant.
Mr. Craig said the applicant wants to address the questions raised as quickly as possible.
However, he still was uncertain as to how to address the road issue, i.e. "the staff clearly
wants it, the applicant doesn't want it, Mr. Jenkins doesn't want it." He questioned how the
applicant could provide any more information on this issue. He felt the applicant was in no
better position than "we were three hours ago" in terms of the connector road issue.
Mr. Jenkins offered a brief history of the connector road, i.e. "it was. put in the last
Comprehensive Plan because there was no second way out from the Park and from the
Brookwood Subdivision." Mr. Jenkins was concerned about the fact that Comprehensive Plan
recommendations are often treated as being "chipped in stone," when, in reality, there are
many factors which determine whether or not something that was once recommended may be
desirable or feasible at some future time.
Mr. Blue expressed agreement with Mr. Jenkins' comments. He added that it is the
Commission's job to recognize, at the appropriate time, that the Plan is not "etched in stone."
Mr. Craig did not object to a deferral, provided the item could be re -scheduled so as not to
charge the Board date of February 8, 1995. It was determined that the item could be heard
as late as January 24th with no impact on the Board date or the preparation of minutes.
Ms. Huckle wondered if staff would have time to address the industrial inventory question
within the timeframe described by the applicant. Mr. Blue added that the status of the
connector road also needs to be addressed. Ms. Huckle felt the two issues were linked
because if the industrial recommendation remains, the connector will be needed.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that accepting a proffer for the additional right-of-way for the
conneGtor road is no guarantee, one way or the other; that the roan will, or will not, be built
Staff is simply trying to make provision for something which is currently shown in the Comp
Plan. If the road is deleted after further review of the Crozet area, the right-of=way could be
vacated back to 50 feet. For that reason, he felt the discussion of the status of the road
could be separated from the rezoning.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-14 for Highlands West Land Trust be deferred to
January 24, 1995. (She expressed no opposition to the item being scheduled as a 5:00 work
session if necessary.) The public was advised to check with the Planning office on the time.
1-3-95
10
It was noted that there would be no further public comment taken at the January 24th
meeting.
Mr. Nitchmann reminded the staff and the Commission that the applicant had expressed a
Willingness, in regards to the industrial area, to postpone rezoning of that portion at this time
if necessary.
Mr. Dotson seconded Ms. Imhoff s motion. He was uncertain whether staff would be able to
address all the issues raised by the 24th.
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-94-09 Jaye1 Industries. Inc. & John E. Campbell - Proposal to amend the proffers of
ZMA-88- 11 to delete the requirement of two points of access and to have no connection
between the Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia developments. Property, described as Tax Map
90D, Parcel A is the location of the bake Reynovia development. This site is zoned R4
Residential (proffered) and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for medium density residential (4.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 5. Deferred from the October 11, 1994 Commission meeting.
Ms. Vaughan excused herself from the discussion due to a possible conflict of interests.
Because the applicant had been linable to meet with all those persons he desired to meet with
(due to the holiday season), he was requesting a deferral to January 24, 1995.
No public comment was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff that ZMA-94-09 be deferred to
January 24, 1995. The motion passed (6:0:1) with Ms. Vaughan abstaining.
SP-94-31 George Hall - Petition to establish a public garage on 0.676 acres zoned RA, Rural
areas [10.2.2(37)]. Property, described as Tax Map 95, Parcel 12B1 is located on the north
side of Route 250 approximately 150 feet west of the Albemarle/Fluuanna County line. This
site is boated in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
Deferred from the December 13, 1994 Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz briefly reminded the Commission that the item had previously been deferred to
allow the applicant and the adjoining property owner to try to come to an agreement on
screening issues. He stated the adjoining property owner was not able to attend this meeting,
but had informed staff that his concerns had been met and he had no further objection to the
request.
%0
1-:3 -95 11
The applicant, Mr. Nall, was present but offered no additional comment.
No public comment was offered..
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-94-31 for George Hall
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to those conditions
presented in staff s report dated December 13, 1994.
Ms. Huckle asked if the approval included the requirement for fencing between the applicant's
property and the adjacent property. Mr. Fritz explained that no fencing is required, but the
applicant is prohibited from outdoor storage -- "No outdoor storage or parts, including junk
parts or inoperable vehicles except those awaiting repair. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be
stored in appropriate containers." Mr. Fritz added that there is also a limitation on the
number of vehicles.
The Architectural Review Board was trade aware of the conditions and stated no concerns.
Mr. Dotson noted that the condition read by Mr. Fritz addressed vehicles awaiting repair, but
did not address vehicles which have been repaired and are awaiting pickup. Ms. Huckle
suggested that the condition could simply state: "No outdoor storage,"
Mr. Fritz said he would check with the Zoning Administrator and if she feels the wording is a
problem, staff will make the appropriate amendment to the wording.
The motion for approval paSCed trnartimolPsly.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-94-06 Panto s Land Trust = Petition to rezone 106.8 acres front R4, Residential
and R-15, Residential to R-6, Residential mid 2.4 acres from R-15, Residential to C-1,
Commercial and 62 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4 Residential and 154 acres from RA,
Rural Areas to R-1, Residential (proffered). Property, described as Tax Map 18, parcels 5`1,
12, 12B, 5501 and 55A4, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended
for Low Density (1-4 dwelling units per acre); Medium Density (4.0 - 10 dwelling units per
acre) and High Density (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) Residential in Neighborhood 3.
Mr. Fritz presented the stiff report. The report concii,?ded „Staff npinic�n is that the
applicant's proposed development with the proposed proffers is superior to the nature of
development which may occur under the existing zoning. Staff remains concerned over the
loss of potential residential units. I1o%--ever, the proposed development addresses several
concerns of the Comprehensive Plan in a method superior to that which could occur under
ray -right development. Based on these comments staff is aisle to support this request subject
to the applicant's proffers, the deletion of those areas lying above the 600 foot elevation and
no commercial zoning."
1-3-95 12
Ms. Huckle asked why the deletion of the areas lying above 600 feet elevation and the
commercial zoning were not part of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Keeler explained: "You
can take that action. You do not have to rezone all the property that has been requested. If
you do take that action, though, I think it should be clear on the record that the applicant's
proffers remain in place, that he is agreeable to continuing the proffers that he has offered."
Mr. Dotson asked if proffer No. 2 [ No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater
except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer.] was just a
restatement of an ordinance requirement or "is this a wrinkle?" Mr. Fritz replied: "It is a
very slight wrinkle. It provides some limited additional coverage of some areas. It gives a
little more flexibility to the County in terms of getting the roads in the best location possible."
It was clarified that the result of this proffer is the 25% prohibition is less strict. Mr. Dotson
understood the proffer to mean "Grading on 25% slopes is allowed, if approved by the
County Engineer." Staff confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Dotson's statement, adding that the
grading is only allowed for road construction, and only if approved by the County Engineer.
Mr. Blue pointed out that this is not an unusual circumstance in the County. Mr. Fritz added
that this proffer has no effect on 25% slopes for building sites.
Mr. Dotson asked about the land above 600 feet elevation which staff proposes be left as RA,
i.e. "How would those be treated in terms of density because they are not separate parcels?"
Mr. Fritz confirmed that they are "portions of parcels" and would be treated "as a portion of
the parcel which was zoned RA."
Mr. Blue asked if a topographic map would be available, at the time of road plan and housing
site approvals, which will be of an accuracy that will make it possible to determine the
location of critical slopes. Mr. Fritz replied that it will be of an accuracy as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Huckle asked how it was possible to achieve R-15 density. Mr. Fritz confirmed that
multi -story buildings would probably be necessary, though the applicant has not indicated that
is what is planned. Ms. Huckle wondered how this would effect the Monticello viewshed.
Mr. Fritz said if the property were to be developed at R-15, it would visible from
Monticello.
Ms. Imhoff asked if any comment had been received from Monticello. Mr. Fritz said he had
received a phone call "today," but since Monticello was represented at the meeting he would
prefer they speak for themselves. (NOTE: No representative from Monticello spoke during
the public comment.)
Ms. Imhoff asked if there were any historic homes on this property. Mr. Fritz was not aware
of any historic structures on the property.
Ms. Imhoff asked if there were any comments from staff on affordable housing with regard to
this site and compliance with the Camp Plan. Mr. Fritz had no comment.
1-3 -95 13
Mr. Dotson asked about the Comp Plan designation for this property_ and the holding capacity,
and are the up -zonings from R-1 and RA in areas where the Comp Plan calls for those
zonings`? Mr. Fritz answered this question by referring to a map showing Comp Plan
recommendations. He pointed out the areas recommended for medium and high. density. On.
the zoning south of the property he stated: "The R-15 zoning is in accord with the Comp
Plan high density. The R-1 zoning that is over there is lower than the medium density
recommended by the Comp Plan and the RA zoning is substantially lower than the low
density recommended by the Comp Plan." Mr. Dotson asked if the R-6 zoning is consistent
with the Comp Plan. Mr. Fritz replied: "The R-6 zoning would be consistent -with the
medium density but is less than the recommendation for the high density area and the area
that is pooposed for R-4 is within the density recommendations for low density." Mr. Dotson:
"So any inconsistency with the Plan is only in the portion at the very bottom where the
proposal is to zone for less density than the Plan calls for. The other areas are literally
consistent with the Plan and the Neighborhood Three Study didn't make any change in that."
Mr. Dotson asked if the Neighborhood Three Study had felt the R-15 or high density was
realistic. Mr. Fraz was not able to answer this question. Mr. Fritz pointed out that even if
the R-15 zoning remains, the applicant could still develop the property at R-6 because there is
no mechanism to require that a property develop at it's highest possible density.
Mr. Blue asked if the long, narrow pipestem out to Rt. 250 was included in the rezoning. Mr.
Fritz responded affirmatively. Mr. Blue did not think there was much chance this could be
used. Mr. Fritz agreed, "because of the terrain."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Roell. He passed photographs of the site
among the Commission. He described the road plans, and plans for the crossover. His
comments included the following:
--It is envisioned the frontage property will he used for a commercial office building;
possibly a bank. It will not be used for a convenience store or gas station. A single -story
brick structure, appropriate for the site, is envisioned. He did not feel the frontage property,
being right on Rt. '50, was appropriate for either single family or multi -family dwellings.
--An effort will be made to maintain as much screening as possible between the lots
and the power line areas.
--The area proposed for R-1 is so projected because it is not servicable by sewer, but
it will have public water. The applicant also felt the R-1 lots in this area would be more
compatible with Franklin and Ashcroft.
--The lower section is rolling and approximately 80% wooded. The applicant wants to
"maintain that as much as possible" and in those areas which must be cleared for roads and
utlitics the applicant will maintain at least "10 trees per acre in open space."
--Cu the steep slopes which "wrap around Westminister Canterbury," approximately 40
lots are projected.
For the benefit of the public, Mr. Roell used the photographs to point out the locations of the
access road and other features of the property.
i-3-95
14
Mr, Roell confirmed that grading will be done only for road construction,
Ms. Imhoff asked why the applicant had not submitted a development nian Mr, Roell
explained that he had submitted to staff "on overall study, er scherr2e." H� coin h� nnilrl nant + uY} - N4uur 1 �e! Yt i4.a�.A Vwu.0
fF *T.: i a.. i, ...,. ti a }...1. -. ,d tT, T TCf1_C' u i-. k . l 4T, a4 4l, 4... . T,nn
}uo er thin plan vc.c ausc. it was t"t vc1lopc 'situ USES nalaps. HC statc%d uiat tie to—VO iicaa eeii
flown sild the topugSaPhy Should be cottll lelteu within a moitilt acid dhis Will I`V lei detefiniile
the amount of 25% critical slope areas. tic added that the final layout of roads would come
at the site plan stage. He said he would be glad to proffer the 50-foot buffers he had
mentioned. He said it was the applicant's intent to screen the power lines from the residents
of this development and also an attempt will be made to maintain a barrier from Ashcroft.
Ms. Imhoff clarified that she was not speaking of a "plan which places everything in its
pla.cet." But what has been presented to the Commission is only "a very general description
with no development plan and the Comp, Plan dearly galls for come typ n� ciPvein�ment
Chv fni.nrl it ��er< diffin}�l4 to rn:.iaas> tlNw r.lnt+ 1�aynairc4a nllp f614 n l�,t nF n,ytr, l ri en
id V ..al aY}}t� Y� [}llV UYa 4V Y1V a YV �w }1}VlaYiS ! i Ji}V Y4 a. + V1 Vl. a e� ..
Wcrcl Missing (as had also beer. hcr fccling aboi.'si ttic Highlands West request earlier iii the
theeting).
Mr. Roell commented: "I really don't see definitive information happening, other than by
phase of site for the property."
Ms. Imhoff felt the road layout -- whether or not it will, or will not. connect to Rt. 20 --and
how the lots will fit in with the topography would be key issues in her determination as to
whether this rezoning is appropriate and meets the Camp Plan recommendations. Mr Roell
noted that the Rt. 20 question will be determined by VDOT.
1`rir. Nitchmann asked hove nian R-i lots, with septic syst ms, were envisioned. Mr. RoCII
iupl ed, "Since you've chopped it off down there at 600 feet, I don't think it will ue much
more than about ov because of topography limitations." (1v1s. Imhoff pointed out that this
would be 60 lots on septic within a growth area.) Mr. Roell confirmed that the remainder
will be served by public sewer which is across Rt. 20. (Mr. Firtz reminded the Commission
that the issue of the "reasonable availability of public sewer" will have to be addressed at the
time of subdivision approval.)
In response to Mc Hlickie's nllestinn ac to how many stories the applicant envisions for the
buildings in the R-15, Mr. Roell explained they will be "2-story single family homes." (Ms.
Imhoff clarified that the applicant plans to develop only at the R-6 den-sityi the low end of the
density rai gc, and there is no rc-quinine rit'that the applicant developer at a higher density)
Mr. Roell estimated the price range of the homes to be $150,000 to $250,000. Those in the
R-1 area with be comparable to Ashcroft.
Public comment was invited.
1-3-95 15
Mr. Gordon Gladill, a resident of Ashcroft, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern
about the notification process, He said the last formal notice property owners had received
had been last June. (Mr. Fritz checked the file and found that notice had been sent to
adjacent property owners on December 16, 1994. He did not have time to determine
whether the Ashcroft Homeowner's Association had been notified.) Mr. Gladill also stated the
Planning Office had informed him that the meeting was scheduled for 7:30 rather than 7:00.
He expressed the feeling that the maps which are made available to the public, because of the
size and lack of detail, are ineffective in providing definitive information to the public.
There was no further public comment.
Mr. Roell again addressed the Commission on the issue of the access to Ashcroft off North
Pantops Drive. He said: "What we are willing to do is provide an emergency access which
is not currently available coming in North Pantops, or at the crossover, and it would wind
around behind Westminster Canterbury and would go up towards where North Pantops used
to come down, and it is now barricaded by rocks and obstructed. We would put a gate and
have a gravel road right away that would provide for emergency access to Ashcroft."
The matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle found the idea o€1,000 units "very frightening," particularly without a site plan, a
development plan, and only USGS maps used as topo. She concluded the request was
"premature."
Ms. Imhoff supported staffs recommendation against the commercial zoning on Rt. 250 east,
and no development above the 600 foot elevation line (with the exception of what is allowed
by -right in the rural area). She would have preferred that the developer "go a little further and
simply not have homes above the 600 foot elevation." She concluded: "Without having a
development plan that shows general lot layout, general steep slope areas, general roads, the
buffers that were discussed, whether there will be any recreation facilities --without that
information I just don't have enough substance to support this rezoning request."
Mr. Jenkins felt that the things mentioned by Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Huckle were "Step 2," to
be addressed at the subdivision and site plan stage. He expressed some confusion.
Ms. Imhoff commented: "For major rezonings, I am used to seeing something which, in
other localities, may be called a sketch plan. It gives you some sense of the rezoning, and has
some conformance with the Comp Plan."
Mr. Jenkins: "I'm not opposed to that, but if this is the procedure we have been going by, it
seems to me that's another meeting where we sit down with staff and say 'we don't like the
way we're doing this and we want to (change).' ...I don't have any problem with changing
(the process) if we can get a majority to vote for that or if the staff agrees that is an improved
way of doing business. But to sit here tonight...."
/5
1-3-95 16
Ms. Imhoff responded to Mr. Jenkins' comments: ""Maybe 1 am confused, I thought that the
Comp Plan called for unified development plans and, in the past, on big rezonings, you had
been having unified developments. Am I missing something? Having been here only a year,
1 was assutni_r_1g that that was standard operating procedure for larger, rezon_ings. I knew that
on some projects you haven't had sketch plans and that has resulted in comments that 'in the
future we sure won't do that again; we'll try to get more information nailed down."'
Ms. Huckle noted that staff had listed the lack of a development plan as one of the
"unfavorable factors" to this request. She felt that once something has been rezoned "it is a
lot harder to cope with (later)."
The concern about the scale of the USES maps was once again brought up. Mr. Blue noted
that the Commission could require more accurate maps for site plan approvals. Mr. Keeler
agreed with Ms. Hackle's concern about the USGS maps. He suggested that proffer # 2
needs to be clarified. He pointed out that the applicant has said he will be work-ing with 5-
foot contour intervals and he felt there should be some reference to that, if everyone was
agreeable to that. (Staff confirmed that Section 1 &52(c) requires a "contour interval of not
greater than 5 feet.")
Mr. Keeler also pointed out that proffer No. 2 allows that only roads may be constructed in
areas of 25% slopes. He felt it was probably the applicant's intention that accessways,
utilities, and stormwater features also be included along with roads, as is the intent of the
Ordinance.
Referring to Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Hackle's comments, Mr. Blue stated: "Maybe it is
premature until we have that interval map."
Mr. Nitchniann felt the applicant was trying to make this a better development, to the benefit
of the County, than could be done by -right. However, he did not like having hQ lots, in the
growth area, on private septic systems. He also agreed with staffs recommendation against
the commercial area. Regarding the sketch plan issue, he recalled there had been problems
when a previous applicant had submitted a sketch plan (1781 Productions), and then the plan
had changed later on. He concluded, "So if we are going to require something, I don't think
it is fair right now to make someone who is not even prepared to do that, to say that we are
going to hold you up to do that. I think we need to sit down with staff and determine exactly
what we expect with applications. If it becomes a cost of doing business for developers to
supply certain minimum information; then we owe it to ourselves and the developers to sit
down and discuss that jointly and put costs with it.... I kind of feel like Tom. This is before
us tonight. I would like to see more detail, but that is just not the way it is."
Mis. Huckle noted that the plan of development is recommended in the Comp Plan.
Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission could require that some of the later stages of the process
(e.g. the subdivision) be brought before the Commission. Staff replied affirmatively. He
/�9
1-3-95
17
listed the following issues which could be addressed at that time: locations of roads, what
will grading be like; erosion concerns, landscaping; etc.
M. s: Huckle asked: "At that point if we decide we don't like it, does he have to go back to
the drawing board? Are we going to do that?" Mr. Dotson responfd- "At that point,
sa i¢ 1 t0, Develop r.-ug'.1017 :frith this mnriu 11r;4u fi1d '14111ot "tj,- w.Fr- APP -4" iu43l iv A.'ei"n
i uaiie� viiy'. ZI7� vvuiu wend li vuvn fvi ieue,si1. Ai0v, iii ut'a ilvt ii'1 vveruli '{iVVVI's3p1i1 ei1t
plait. Those suudi'visions cwme iu (iii phases) so that you don't get an, o'verael scheme, but It is
Y Ulan
11'
Ueiter Mali I2oilling.
Ms. Imhoff recalled that the Commission has had this same discussion previously. She
added: "If the case is that this rezoning does not get a development plan of some sort, then I
think it behooves the applicant to be extremely more, descriptive in their proposal on this
proiect and I think that right now it is very thin in terms of what the proffers say and staff
has pointed out that there is some problem with the wording and there are man y things that
this applicant talked about tonight that are not cov;, roa in what has been submittedd today,"
C €yy nv.i�r��s� F 'i.rr��+ F:lr� F� t_L. �� l„ ny� ��1ryyy�Y+rnr1y y +♦ry +F. +...:1. ss 1. .3
Staff \anfirniVal Li'lat a prelimar Ale+ 1-Aad been subprift ed to thcm (though It vas aseA on
the "ifiriperfe t" topo iuforwiat-lorl). N4, Fritz explained. "rlevlous Cloirfruisslolls have asked
that we not forward unproffered plans to them because they are not binding. We can provide
it to you but we have been operating on past (policy)."
Mr. Blue felt that the questions which have been raised about the procedure are good ones.
He said: "I take the position on, this one that staff has recommended approval. They know
what can be done by -right and they've seen these sketch plans and, with the exception of the
commercial, they have recommended approval. And except for the general condition- ..that we
don't have a sF.-4_.ific Flare, I don't see that we can go wrong by rescomimending the rezoniM.
But Till not sure about that."
ivis. Imiihoff stated, as she had earlier in the evening, *at she was Bader the imipressl ii uie
Commission had a policy that they would not vote on major rezonings the same evening as
the public hearing and if further information is needed, the item would be deterred. Mr. Blue
questioned whether this was an actual policy, though he agreed it had been discussed several
times.
Ms. Imhoff Noted that the applicant had "brought up a few other things that he thought about
doing with thisite which gives some room for improvement to the proposal." She favored
deferral.
Zv`}r. Nitchmann asked what was expected from - Ms.
deferral. Ms. Imhoff replied: ".14.�ww,;Id like
to see a develt prueitt play►," Mi`. Woe teisjiunded to s. iilihoff "We might go beyond the
statute, period, to get that." Mr. Nitchmann responded: "I don't think you're going to see
one. If that is something that we are going to require, then we need to put it in the
%haw Ordinance, so it is written down."
17
1-3-95 18
1�..r Ms. Imhoff clarified that the items mentioned by the applicant had been buffers, and setbacks
from power lines. She noted that the Commission does not seem, to support the commercial
area. She also noted that staff had suggested some changes to the wording of proffer No. 2.
She felt the proffers needed to be revised by the applicant and submitted in final form, prior
to action and forwarding to the Board.
Ms. Huckle again expressed the feeling that better topo maps were needed. She felt this was
particularly important because of the topography of the property. She recalled there had been
serious problemswith a previous developeinent with the siting of drainftelds which had been
caused by inadequate topo.
The applicant's comments were invited on the possibility of a deferral.
Mr. Roell questioned the purpose of a deferral. He pointed out that an "overall site plan" had
been submitted to staff and it is available for review, though it is not a plan which he could
Proffer. Re felt it wott1d take some time and thow-rands of dollars, to generate, such a plan as
described by the Commission. He noted: "You're talking about 600 homes, over how many
years, which will require how many modifications and changes, etc." He stated that every
site plan must be submitted for review and is required to meet County Ordinance. Ile said
the applicant will supply "2-foot topo intervals with every site plan, showing our lots and
layouts, roads and steep slopes, section by section."
Mr. BIue felt Mr. Roell's comments had answered his question and "deferring to a date within
the time period allowed, we're not going to get much better than we've got now." He pointed
out that staff already has the sketch plan and has essentially approved it. He concluded: "It
seems to me that deferring isn't going to do much good. We've either got to accept our staff
recommendation and either vote it up, or decline to because we don't have that detail, and
vote it down."
Ms. Imhoff felt a deferral would not be completely without purpose since it would allow the
applicant time to revise the proffers as he had discussed.
Ms. Vaughan asked how the sketch plan which staff has seen is different from a development
plan. Mr. Fritz explained that the plan is not proffered and is not binding on the applicant in
any way. Mr. Blue added that it could not be proffered because there is not yet enough basic
information for an accurate map to be prepared.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about time needed to prepare the topo map once the
property has been flown, Roell explained the process in some detail. He concluded: "I
am willing to accept the proffers as restated by staff, for proper grammatical structure,"
Ms. Imhoff again stated she was accustomed, in her experience in other areas, to having
sketch plans which, though very general, at least give some idea of access location and areas
/9
1-3-95 i9
to be avoided. She felt this is an issue which the Commission needs to resolve soon because
it is a major part of a rezoning_
Mr. Blue agreed, but he felt the applicant has done that in the plan which was presented to
staff_
Mr. Nitchmann said he trusted staffs analysis of the request.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchnian moved that ZMA-94-06 for Upper Pantops Land Trust be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as recommended by staff, i.e. no
commercial zoning and the deletion of those areas lying above the 600-foot elevation line,
and subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers, with those proffers to be finalized in
writing, as discussed by the applicant earlier in the meeting, prior to the Board hearing.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked if the 5-foot interval fnap requirement is 3nade a part of proffer No. 2,
would it apply only to road construction, or will it also apply to houses, drainnelds, etc.? Mr.
Davis explained that it was his understanding that the applicant has offered to amend the
proffer to include those structures which are allowed in the Zoning Ordinance (accessways,
utility easements, stormwater measures). Mr. Fritz stated he understood the Commission's
intent, i.e. that the 5-foot interval map be used. Though Mr. Nitchmann stated he Understood
it was Ms. Huckle's concern that the 5-foot interval would only apply to roads, staff did not
specifically answer Ms. Huckle's question as to whether or not it would apply to house sites
and drainfields.
Mr. Davis noted: "I am not sure the applicant has indicated that he is willing to make these
proffers even ,f your recommendation is not to rezone the commercial area and not to rezone
the area above 600 feet. I think that needs to be clarified."
Mr. Roell responded: "I would have to accept whatever the Board deemed as just in the
decision, so, yes, I would be willing to accept that condition."
Mr. Davis asked: "And to continue the proffers for the remainder of the property that is
zoned?" Mr. Roell responded: "That is re -zoned."
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Imhoff casting the dissenting vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
1-3-95
20
The Commission asked staff to research the sketch plan question, i.e. whether or not it should
be a requirement with rezonings? Mr. Nitchmann cautioned that the more cost that
developers incur in the process, the more difficulty in providing affordable housing. Ms.
Imhoff suggested that staff contact Loudon County and James City County to see how they
approach this issue. Mr. Dotson suggested that the requirement could be tied to the scale of
the development.
The Commission asked for copies of the Utility Master Plan.
Ms. Imhoff thanked staff for displaying the Zoning Map at the meeting and hoped that it
could be displayed at each meeting.
Mr. Dotson asked that Comp Plan or Zoning maps be included in staff reports which show
where the subject property lies. He felt air photos would be helpful when possible.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
NO
';20