HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 28 1995 PC Minutes2-28-95
FEBRUARY 28, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 28,
1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr.
Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were:
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski,
Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
February 7, 1995, were unanimously approved as amended.
Approval of Guiding Principles for Land use Plan/Growth Area Expansion
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the guiding principles be
approved as amended at the 5:15 (February 28, 1995) work session. The motion passed
unanimously. (Mr. Blue noted that Mr. Nitchmann had also agreed with the principles.)
Mr. Dotson explained, for the benefit of the public, that the guiding principles are not a
change to the Comprehensive Plan. They are a set of guidelines that will be used by staff in
further analyzing possibilities.
Ms. Imhoff asked that a copy of the revised principles be included in the Commission's next
packet (for the March 7th meeting).
-----------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Addition to Moorman's River Ag_riculturaUForestal District - The proposed addition consists
of two parcels containing 169 acres Iocated on the west side of Rt. 821 (Blufton Mill Road)
near Millington.
and
Addition to Blue Run Agricultural/Forest al District - The proposed addition consists of two
parcels containing 39.205 acres. One parcel is located on the west side of Rt. 777 (Vineyard
Road) near Barboursville; the other parcel is located on the west side of Rt. 639, north of
Lindsay.
and
17
2-28-95 L
Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition consists of two
parcels containing 17.390 acres. One parcel is located on the northwest side of Rt. 22
(Louisa Road); the other parcel is located on the northeast side of Rt. 648 (Clark's Tract
Road), both near Keswick.
and
Addition to Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed addition consists of
one parcel containing 26.890 acres located on the east side of Rt. 601 (Free Union Road) near
Buck Mountain.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the four agricultural forestal
districts be referred to the Advisory Committee. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-94-41 Virginia Land Trust - Petition to allow a stream crossing of the floodplain
[30.3.5.2.1(2)]. Property, described as Tax Map 20, parcel 6A consists of approximately
522.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Route 743
approximately 0.2 miles west of Rt. 641 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is
not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Deferred from the February 7, 1995
Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle asked if Glenn Brooks (County Engineer's Office) had spoken with staff about
"delineating the structural measures" for this crossing. Mr. Brooks responded to this question
and pointed out that he had addressed Ms_ Huckle's concern in his memo to Ms. Hipski dated
January 30, 1995. He said that the applicant's representative, Mr. Rouell, has agreed,
verbally, to comply with his recommendations. Ms. Huckle wanted these recommendations to
be included in the conditions of approval.
Ms. Imhoff asked why a water quality impact assessment was being required on the next
application (SP-94-42 for Steven Leavell), but not on this one. Mr. Brooks explained that it
is a requirement of the county's Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance and applies to
perennial streams (i.e. those which flow all year, have a greater flow, and have wetlands). He
explained that the stream in this application (SP-94-41 for Virginia Land Trust) has not been
classified as a perennial stream.
Ms. Imhoff asked if the "exclusive easement" was limited only to these 28 lots or "is it just a
50-foot easement that might be difficult to use because of off -site grading needs? ... Is the
applicant planning a bigger road, or is it not possible to fit a farm road into that 50-foot
easement?" Ms. Hipski was not aware of the applicant's ultimate plans for the property. She
said staff has not received a subdivision request for the property. She did have a profile of
2-28-95
3
the road which she felt met the private road standards for this application. She said it was
clear that "they would not have been able to fit (the road) in."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Rouell. He presented aerial photographs
showing the existing road and the area for access. He explained that the crossing is "at the
very tip end of the floodplain, 1,000 feet away from the Rivanna River." This crossing will
provide a better access to the farm for the present and is being designed to accommodate
possible future development. He said the property "may or may not be developed." Several
by -right development possibilities have been designed, but none have been submitted for
approval. He elaborated on the 50-foot easement which runs between the two adjacent
parcels: "There is a 50-foot easement and there is an additional 75-foot grading easement.
However, that is only to the right-hand side. The 50-foot easement which requires the road to
be located in that particular area, in order to have even a reasonable profile, --and if you
looked at the profile, from the start of the entrance, it's a fill, all the way down until it hits a
knoll, then it's a severe cut, and then it hits another 20-foot fill crossing the top end of that
same stream --at that point, it requires 100-feet of pipe to compensate for 2:1 slope and a
reasonable shoulder to make it a safe passage. It requires more than the distance of the 50-
foot. So we would either have to obtain land from the adjoining neighbor ... but it's not a
feasible approach without some compromise of one sort or another." He said he had met
with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Quality regarding
this proposal. He explained that construction had begun on the farm road after having
received verbal O.K.'s from the County Engineering Department and the Soil Erosion official.
It was then later determined that the site was in the floodplain and work had stopped.
Ms. Huckle asked: "Why was this 50-foot easement put in there if it wasn't intended to be a
road?" Mr. Rouell replied: "It was intended to be and Dr. (Hurt) thought that would provide
access to his farm and as it turns out it is not as practical as he had planned." Ms. Huckle
asked if there were future plans for a public road. Mr. Rouell answered: "Possibly at some
future point. I have not been instructed to make application or even do engineering for lot
layouts, etc." Ms. Huckle asked: "When does it cease to be a farm road and become a
subdivision road?" Mr. Rouell answered: "When it is submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval." (Mr. Blue added: "Which at this point would be a by -right subdivision.")
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Brenson White, property owner south of the proposed entrance, addressed the
Commission. He said he represented 20-30 people who live south of the proposed entrance.
It was his feeling that the proposed entrance was "the least objectionable of any of the
alternatives... because all we, or any of our neighbors in Advance Mills, are going to do is
drive by it." He asked that a condition be imposed which would allow this as the only
entrance to serve this property. (Later in the meeting, Ms. Hipski pointed out that condition
96 addresses this concern. See further discussion below.) Mr. Blue asked: "Since you are
familiar with the neighbors, do you think that most of the people out there assume that this
will be the entrance to some sort of subdivision, rather than just a farm entrance." Mr. White
2-28-95
4
replied: "Oh, yes. We know this will be developed, eventually, and we want it done
correctly."
Ms. Anne Novak, property owner on the north side of the proposed stream crossing,
addressed the Commission. She said she represented people who live on the north side of the
proposed entrance. She expressed the opinion that the stream in question is a perennial (not
an intermittent) stream. She also expressed concern about the entrance to the property being
so close to, what she described as, a very dangerous curve. She, too, acknowledged, that
people in that area have no doubt that the property will be developed and there is no dispute
of the by -right development of the property. She did not think the entrance location was in
the best interests of the community. She suggested that the property could be served better
from another road.
Mr. Jim Howe, a neighbor in the area, addressed the Commission. He pointed out that an
alternative location for the entrance (between the Whites and Mattixes) would also cross the
same stream and would cross it closer to the source, thereby impacting the entire watershed.
Mr. Rouell addressed Ms. Novak's comments. He said he has had extensive meetings with
VDOT and "there is equal or greater sight distance from this location than there is at the site
between White and Mattix."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Davis: "If this proposal complies with all our existing rules and
regulations, as the staff report indicates, what basis do we have to turn down a stream
crossing?"
Mr. Davis replied: "This is a special use application and the general test for special use
applications is it can be denied if there is an alternative reasonable use of the property by
right that does not involve the approval of the special use permit. So if you can determine
that they already have a reasonable use of the property as a farm and have reasonable access
for a farm with the existing right-of-way, that could be a basis for denial of the permit."
Ms. Imhoff said she had visited the site and she was very reluctant to grant this request on
this very windy section of road. She found the entrance unsafe.
Ms. Huckle had also visited the site. She expressed agreement with Ms. Imhoff.
Mr. Blue said he had also visited the site and he had not had the same feeling about it as had
Commissioners Huckle and Imhoff. He added: "It seems to me if we had a plan for a
subdivision in front of us,... that might be a better time to be discussing additional traffic. I'm
not sure that it is realistic for us to make the assumption --they've applied for a floodplain
crossing --even when we know that is going to be a necessary step for a subdivision." Ms.
Imhoff felt slow -moving farm vehicles would be of even greater concern. Mr. Blue
VE
5
2-28-95
disagreed, saying: I think its a lot safer for a farm vehicle to come out of (the proposed
entrance) than from the existing driveway, but I'm not going to argue that point because I
don't think it is going to be a farm."
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the Commission depends on VDOT as the expert in these
matters and they have determined that this proposed entrance meets the criteria for an
acceptable entrance. He also agreed with Mr. Blue about the future use of the property. He
said: "While I have some reservation about the need for this based on the fact that this may
remain in grazing land or other farming use, all of us know it is most likely going to be
subdivided by -right at some future time and at that point the current entrance absolutely
would not be acceptable. VDOT would not approve that entrance for further subdivision, so
what is being asked here tonight would have to take place at that time. So, I guess I'd just as
soon have it earlier as later."
Mr. Dotson asked about VDOT comments, thus far. Ms. Hipski explained that the existing
entrance does not have commercial entrance sight distance. The entrance next to Mr. White's
property has commercial entrance sight distance but has problems with the road. The
proposed entrance, has, at this time, commercial entrance sight distance. Any concerns about
this would be addressed by condition No. 5. She added that VDOT can require turn lanes at
the time of subdivision.
There was a brief discussion of condition No. 6: "This stream crossing will provide exclusive
access for the 439.005 acre parcel (TM 20-P6AI) and will provide access for the 116.889
acre parcel (TM 20-P6A) as shown on attachment B, page 3." Mr. Blue asked if this is legal,
given the fact that this request is for only a floodplain crossing.
Mr. Davis addressed Mr. Blue's question: "I think it would depend on whether that
requirement is reasonably related to what they are asking for. I think staff s position is that it
would minimize the number of stream crossings necessary in the future if this property is all
accessed by this one stream crossing location and if that is rationally related, I think this
condition is a valid condition." Mr. Davis pointed out also that the condition, as written, does
not require that the access under review be "exclusive" access for the 116-acre parcel. Thus,
if the 116-acre parcel has other means of access, that is not precluded with this condition.
Mr. Dotson asked: "At such time as a future by -right subdivision were submitted, with that
condition, that subdivision would be served by this access point?" Mr. Davis replied: "I
believe that is the intent." Mr. Blue added: "Even if the ownership of those parcels were to
change." Mr. Davis confirmed: "This special permit condition is something which would run
with the land, and they would have to be aware of that when transferring the property."
Adjoining acreage owned by the applicant was discussed briefly. Ms. Hipski pointed out other
possible access points, from other roads, which had been considered by staff. There had been
problems with critical slopes and stream setbacks.
M
M
2-28-95 6
Mr. Dotson asked if VDOT's comments had taken into consideration the fact that "the kind of
road that is being approved is one that VDOT would look at in the same way if they knew it
was a subdivision application instead of a farm road." Ms. Hipski confirmed that VDOT
would require commercial entrance sight distance either for the farm road or a subdivision
road. Mr. Keeler added: "Technically, we would require it at the time of the subdivision
plat. VDOT has taken the position that if an entrance exists that they don't have any
authority to upgrade, we have the authority under out subdivision ordinance and if they don't
have sight distance, we'd simply disapprove the subdivision. We've never recommended
approval of a subdivision that has not had commercial sight distance."
Mr. Keeler explained that VDOT determines what sight distance is required. Mr. Rouell
explained that a speed study had been done.This road is posted at 35 mph (requiring 350 feet
of sight distance) and was speed studied at 45 mph (requiring 450 feet of sight distance).
The entrance has 500 feet of sight distance.
Mr. Blue questioned whether there was any basis for turning down the request. He felt there
would probably be no more reason to turn it down at the time of subdivision, but at that time
a denial might be based on a feeling that the road was not adequate for the traffic. It really
would have nothing to do with the floodplain issue. He concluded: "I find it hard to believe
we can turn the floodplain crossing down when it meets all the requirements and turn it down
on the basis of too much traffic on that road."
Ms. Imhoff responded to Mr. Blue: "I agree with everything you say except towards the end.
I think with a special permit its not that you have to find reasons why you are turning it
down, you simply have to say, 'sorry, it doesn't quite fit and there is an alternate point is well
taken that it probably will come up again. My only reason for wanting to deny the special
permit at this time is I remain unconvinced that the applicant can't work out either the 50-foot
easement, which I think has better (sight distance), or some arrangement off 664. I,
personally, feel that that is not a particularly good entrance."
Mr. Blue pointed out that the same stream would still have to be crossed, even with a
location as suggested by Ms. Imhoff. Ms. Imhoff responded that her concerns are more with
location of the crossing than with the actual crossing itself.
In response to Ms. Huckle's concerns and construction, it was decided condition No. 1 would
be amended to read: "Albemarle County Engineering approval of a final design sketch of the
stream crossing in accordance with a memo dated January 30, 1995 from Mr. Glenn Brooks,
County Engineer Department, with particular attention to items (a) through (d)."
Mr. Dotson asked if this stream would require a water quality impact assessment if it were
determined to flow year round. Mr. Brooks replied affirmatively but explained that is a
difficult determination to make. He pointed out that even if it is an intermittent stream the
applicant must get permits from the state and federal agencies, which he has done.
rdilm
rJUR
2-29-95 7
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that SP-94-41 for Virginia Land
Trust, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Albemarle County Engineering approval of a final design sketch of the stream crossing in
accordance with a memo dated January 30, 1995 from Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Department, with particular attention to items (a) through (d).
(2) Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations.
(3) Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion Control Plan.
(4) Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State
agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses.
(5) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance location.
(6) This stream crossing will provide exclusive access for the 439.005 acre parcel (TM 20-
P6A1) and will provide access for the 116.889 acre parcel (TM 20-P6A) as shown on
attachment B, page 3, of the staff report dated February 28, 1995.
The motion for approval passed 4:2 with Commissioners Huckle and Imhoff casting the
dissenting votes.
Ms. Huckle explained her vote had been based on the belief that there are other possibilities
for the entrance.
SP-94-42 Steven Leavell - Petition to allow a stream crossing of the floodplain [30.5.2.1(2)].
Property, described as Tax Map 81, Parcel 56B, consists of approximately 91 acres zoned
RA, Rural Areas and is located on the north side of Route 648 approximately 1.4 miles west
of Route 22 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated
growth area (Rural Area 10. Deferred from the February 7, 1995 Commission meeting.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Responding to Mr. Blue's questions about possible backup of water onto other parcels, Ms.
Hipski confirmed that staff had addressed this issue.
Referring to the pipestem portion of the property, Mr. Blue asked if this parcel could have
been created under today's ordinances. Ms. Hipski replied: "I would assume so. I am not
aware of any regulations which have changed (since the creation of this parcel)."
W
0
2-28-95 x
The applicant, Mr. Steven Leavell, addressed the Commission. He confirmed that if this
crossing is approved, the adjoining property, owned by Dr. Noonan, should not need a stream
crossing because he understands the building sites on the adjoining property will be on the
left side of the stream.
There was no public comment.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-94-42 for Steven Leavell,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance location.
2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of the final bridge plans and details. The plans
should included grading plans for the road and abutments in the floodplain with details for
culverts through the embankment to lower the backwater. Bridge plans must be sealed and
signed by a professional engineer.
3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic, hydraulic and structural
computations.
4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion Control Plan if the disturbance is
more than 10,000 square feet.
5. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State
agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses.
6. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a water quality impact assessment.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-94-24 C. Todd Shields - Petition to rezone approximately 5.0 acres from R-6
Residential to C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcel 112 (part), is
located on the east side of the proposed Berkmar Drive Extended adjacent to the existing
Kegler's bowling center in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is recommended
for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1.
and
SP-94-44 C. Todd Shields - Petition to establish a commercial recreation establishment on
approximately 5.0 acres zoned C-1, Commercial [22.2.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax Map
45, parcel 112 (part), is located on the east side of the proposed Berkmar Drive Extended
9Ll
2-28-95 7
adjacent to the existing Kegler's bowling center in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff reports. Staff was recommending approval of both petitions.
Ms. Imhoff asked how the proposed hours of operation compare with Kegler's and the
miniature golf course. Mr. Fritz explained that the hours are the same as Kegler's with the
exception that Kegler's opening time is 10:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m.
Ms. Huckle asked how the water from the bumper boat pool will be disposed of. Mr. Fritz
explained that it can be used for on -site irrigation or it can be pumped and hauled away, but
it cannot be discharged.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Carter. He stressed that this will be a family
facility and no alcohol will be sold or permitted on the premises. He briefly explained the
safety features of the go-karts and he also explained that the bumper boat water will have to
meet all DEQ rules and regulations. He felt this was a better site than previous ones,
pointing out that the only negative factor identified by staff (in relation to the rezoning) is the
lack of sewer to the site. He pointed out that the Commission authorized the use of private
septic for the site currently under review during the August 1993 review of ZMA-93-09 and
SP-93-20 subject to the following condition: "At such time as a sewer line with adequate
capacity is in place within 200 feet of the building, the applicant shall connect to public
sewer. The applicant has no objections to that same condition being imposed at this time.
He pointed out the following differences in this proposal from the one made on this property
in 1993: (1) Berkmar Drive Extended is currently under construction and it is hoped it can
be used to access this site, thus making the need for the pipestem from Rt. 29 unnecessary;
(2) C-1 zoning is being requested instead of HC; C-1 is less intense zoning; (3) The R-6
land across Berkmar Drive from this property is now in the middle of the Western. Bypass
alternative 10 alignment and staff is currently re-evaluating the R-6 designation for that
property; (4) There are no negative comments from the school. He summarized that the use
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding area east of Berkmar Drive is
zoned for commercial use or is recommended for regional service.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Karen Strickland expressed strong opposition to the proposal. She felt go-karts are
"morally reprehensible" because "they are a symbol of the abusive way Americans use up the
world's resources" and they are also a nuisance. She felt this use would discourage other
more desirable uses on adjacent property. She also felt the use would have a negative impact
on Agnor-Hurt Elementary School which is approximately 1/3 mile away. If approved, she
asked that a condition be imposed that no one under 16 years of age be allowed on the
property during school hours.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
95"
2-28-95 to
For the benefit of new Commissioners, Mr. Blue briefly recalled the history of former public
hearings on this proposal.
Ms. Imhoff stated that in the past she has been concerned about losing medium -high
residential property. However, in this particular case, she was less concerned, given the
proximity to Kegler's and the miniature golf course. She was also influenced, in this case,
by the real possibility there would not be R-6 zoning across Berkmar Drive once the new
road alignment is considered. She concluded she could support both the rezoning and special
permit.
Ms. Huckle asked if Ms. Imhoff would support an additional condition as suggested by Ms.
Strickland. Ms. Imhoff declined, saying that she felt the County Attorney would need to
consider such a condition. She felt it would be difficult to enforce such a condition and she
could also envision times when there may be children visiting the area who would want to
use the facility.
Ms. Huckle said she could not support the request without public utilities.
Mr. Dotson agreed with Ms. Imhoffs statements. He added that he felt there was value in
clustering this use with Kegler's.
Ms. Vaughan agreed with Mr. Dotson, though she shared some of Ms. Strickland's concerns
about the impact on the school. She wished there had been more comment from the school.
Mr. Jenkins agreed with some of Ms. Strickland's comments about this type of recreation, but
he noted that there seems to be wide acceptance of this type of use. Mr. Jenkins suggested
that condition No. 6 say "9 a.m. to midnight" rather than "9 a.m. to 12 a.m." which he felt
might cause some confusion.
Mr. Blue expressed an understanding of Ms. Strickland's concerns and though he said he
agreed with some, he did not agree with all.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-24 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
The motion passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-44 for C. Todd Shields be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. No alcohol sales.
2. The bumper boat pool shall not be constructed until a method of handling the waste water
has been approved by the Department of Environmental Quality.
LA
2-28-95 i l
3. Fencing on the east, north and south side of the recreation area shall not be bonded and
shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
4. Compliance with Section 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Uses shall be limited to go-cart track, batting cages, miniature golf, arcade, bumper boats,
snack bar, and children's play area.
6. Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 A.M. (midnight), except for Fridays and
Saturdays when the facility may be operated from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed 5:1 with Commissioner Huckle casting the
dissenting vote.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that a private septic system be permitted for SP-94-44 with the
condition that at such time as a sewer line with adequate capacity is in place within 200 feet
of the building, the applicant shall connect to public sewer.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the
dissenting vote.
ZMA-94-21 Joseph W. Wright, Jr. - Petition to amend the previous proffers of ZMA 89-08.
Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 41D, is located on the west side of Route 29
opposite Timberwood Boulevard in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead.
Mr. Fritz distributed revised proffers, which he stated changed the staffs recommendation
from denial to approval. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Mr. Fritz explained that proffer
No. 2 addresses staffs concerns.
Referring to the discussion about a 50-foot right-of-way earlier in the meeting, Ms. Huckle
asked if a 50-foot right-of-way was adequate. Mr. Fritz replied: "The right-of-way
dimension is the same as what was previously proffered. There was a general road alignment
shown then. You'll notice that the proffer is not specific to a given location. It just states
that a minimum right-of-way will be provided. A need for more right-of-way will be
addressed at the time of site plan review." Mr. Blue felt Ms. Huckle was somewhat different.
He explained: "The reason the previous right-of-way wasn't large enough was because it had
so much cuts and fills, the same thing as occurred in Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek. I think
this is not quite the same cut and fill, although it could be, and (Ms. Huckle) may be right --
maybe they should be reserving enough to get the road in there, including the cuts and fills."
Ms. Huckle also wondered how you could prevent someone from wanting to put a building
where the right-of-way might go, if it is not delineated. Mr. Fritz did not think that was a
problem. He explained: 'By delineating a location and alignment at this time, it may be
VM
2-28-95 12
determined at some point in the future that one of these other properties may want to use that
same (alignment) and may work a deal with one of the adjacent property owners. That road
alignment would need to be such to allow for the connection of that road back there, to
provide for a T intersection, or straight -through intersection, or different alternatives. So we
did not want to delineate an alignment at this time." Mr. Fritz could not say at this time
what would be the best alignment to serve the adjacent properties. He confirmed that all that
is being required at this time is that there be a minimum right-of-way to connect Rt. 649 and
Rt. 29, with the provision to allow access to adjacent properties at the time of site plan and
subdivision approval.
Mr. Wright addressed the Commission. He explained he was requesting amendment to the
previous proffers because the use anticipated at that time had not materialized and the special
permit is no longer effective. In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the topography of
the property, he said very little cut and fill would be required. He also said there is adequate
sight distance on Rt. 649.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler explained proffer No. 2 to the Commission: "One of the problems with
constructing public through roads is that VDOT will not allow the road to be phased in terms
of its construction --you have to build the ultimate cross section. With this wording, this will
allow Mr. Wright to phase the construction so ultimately it will be acceptable to VDOT. The
only way you can phase a road with VDOT is if it is 4-lane divided --you build half of it to
its ultimate and they get that in service, and then you build the other half at a later date. This
could conceivably begin as a private road where, obviously, you would want to put down the
adequate base, but you may add to the pavement as more traffic is generated." He clarified
that staff supports this approach because "it gives more flexibility to Mr. Wright and
ultimately it will be a public road."
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that ZMA 94-21 for Joseph W.
Wright, Jr. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of
the applicant's proffers.
Discussion:
Ms. Imhoff stated that though she normally does not like to see proffers amended, she felt, in
this case, that the amended proffers give the county more flexibility because it allows more
up-to-date regulations to be implemented.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-95-1 EOC Site Analysis - The Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent
to rezone + 1.0 acres from HC, Highway Commercial to R-I, Residential (also zoned EC,
ff
2-28-95 13
Entrance Corridor Overlay District) for construction of a City/County/University Emergency
Operations Center. Property; described as Tax Map 60, parcel 30F, is situated in the
southeast quadrant of Rt. 25OW & Rt. 250 bypass interchange in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District. This property is located in the Urban Neighborhood 6 and recommended for public
use in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained this rezoning petition had been initiated
by the Board of Supervisors to allow location of a City/County[University Emergency
Operations Center. The rezoning is necessary to avoid constraint to design due to setback
requirements. This will allow greater spatial use of the property.
There was no public comment.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that ZMA-95-01 be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval and that the Commission find that the EOC and a
fire/rescue squad facility at this location are both consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00.
E •.
au
Work Session 2-28-95
WORK SESSION
Date: February 28, 1995, 5:15 p.m.
Present: Imhoff, Blue, Nitchmann, Huckle, Dotson, Vaughan, Jenkins, Scala,
Benish
Subjects: Guiding Principles for Land Use Plan/Growth Area Expansion
Vacant Land Study
The Commission discussed each of the 8 guiding principles and made the following decisions.
No. 1 - Staff s recommended new wording preferred.
No. 2 - Mr. Dotson proposed some new wording which was discussed by the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff felt Mr. Dotson's wording was acceptable provided it is understood that it means
a 5-year period. Mr. Blue expressed concern about judging land values. It was finally
decided that staff s recommended wording was preferred over Mr. Dotson's
No. 3: Add: "the North Fork of the Rivanna above the water intake point (Jacob's Run), if
determined to be a water supply watershed."
No. 4: The majority of the Commission preferred staffs recommended wording. Mr. Blue
preferred the original wording. Mr. Dotson wondered if "significant areas" should be more
clearly defined and listed. Mr. Benish pointed out that this term is defined in the Open Space
Plan. Staff gave as examples "important farmlands and forests, major stream valleys, cultural
resources." It was agreed that the recommended condition was acceptable, but that the term
"significant areas" would be capitalized, making it clear that it is a term which is more
elaborately defined in the Open Space Plan.
No. 5: Staffs recommended new wording preferred.
No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9: All acceptable as presented by staff.
Mr. Dotson proposed a new sequence for the guidelines. There was no opposition to Mr.
Dotson's suggestion. Thus the 9 guidelines were re -ordered as follows: 1 remains l; 7
becomes 2; 8 becomes 3; 3 becomes 4; 4 becomes 5; 9 becomes 6; 6 becomes 7; 5 becomes
8; 2 becomes 9.
Vacant Land Stud
v
Ms. Imhoff expressed an interest in the Scottsville area. Mr. Benish explained that the town
had annexed what had been the growth area. Staff has not considered providing additional
%a0
Work Session 2-28-95
growth areas around the town's growth areas. He noted, however, "but you could look at that
town as having holding capacity." Ms. Imhoff was in favor of that approach. She noted that
Scottsville is part of the County and should be viewed as one of the areas where "we want to
promote economic development, and we want to have capacity there."
Mr. Bob Watson, representing Blue Ridge Homebuilders, gave a brief presentation. He first
addressed the question of why specific sites in the existing growth areas have not developed.
--152 acres in Earlysville - The owner will not sell.
--Approximately 1,000 acres in Avon Street area, south of town (in 2 ownerships) -
Not for sale at the present time, at least not at realistic prices.
--600 acres in Crozet - A few topographic problems and drainage problems, but are
not available, "primarily because of price." (His organization feels there is an additional 400
acres in Crozet which are in the growth area but whose owners are not willing to sell.)
--Approximately 900 acres in North Garden - None are realistically for sale. There
are also infrastructure problems.
--Approximately 400 acres (acreage uncertain) in Scottsville area - He could not say
whether this property was available, but he said there was "no market -driven reason to have
that as a developable acreage." His organization could see no reason for including this
acreage in the growth area at this time.
He concluded: "This totals approximately 2,200 acres which are not developable. When
added to Mr. Benish's starting point of 2,400 acres, the total is 4,700 acres, which parallells
Mr. Benish's original. thesis."
Mr. Watson called attention to a statement in Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Vaughan's statement of
the previous week which said that design and density could have a significant impact on the
amount of land which needs to be added to the growth area. He concluded his presentation by
asking that the Commission, during it's land use discussions, give consideration to those
regulations and road issues which impact density.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Watson if he was aware of any interest in in -fill development in the
Crozet area, "in the center of the community."
Addressing Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Blue said he had understood the Crozet residents were
not interested in increasing density. Ms. Huckle felt they were not interested in "sprawl" but it
was her recollection there had been talk of doing "some retrofitting of existing buildings with
apartments above." Ms. Imhoff felt they had been interested in design issues, but she recalled
that she had been placed on "the hot seat" for saying that Crozet is a growth area and should
not be downzoned. Ms. Imhoff understood Mr. Watson had said the owners in Crozet have
either been reluctant to sell, or the price has been too high. Mr. Watson confirmed Ms.
Imhoff was accurate.
/D/
Work Session 2-28-95
3
V` Mr. Dotson asked if Mr. Watson felt any of the parcels had not developed because they are
"inappropriately designated." Mr. Watson responded that the Earlysville property might fit
this description because of the lack of infrastructure.
Mr. Mike Russ (Wade Homes) addressed the issue of why some lots in the exsiting growth
areas have not developed (from a builder's perspective). He divided the lots into three
categories:
(1) Developed lots (with infrastructure in place) - The owner has no present
motivation to sell and the lots often have features that reduce their desirability. These are
often sold in a "distress" situation, e.g.estate sale or tax sale. There is also difficulty in
marketing "scattered" lots.
(2) Approved but undeveloped or only partially developed lots - These are not
attractive to builders. Builders approach these lots with "fear and protection" because they do
not have the expertise to deal with all the infrastructure issues. They are not familiar with all
the county ordinances, etc.
(3) Truly undeveloped in -fill lots - Builders view all the land costs as "outrageous."
"It is sn unrealistic situation unless you have a structure to deal with that and go through the
negotiating period. We're just not structured to do that."
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Russ how much of his company's development is in designated growth
area vs. how much is outside. Mr. Russ responded that the vast majority in the last two
years has been within the growth area.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Russ has a "minimum" number of lots which they will work on in a
specific project at one time. Mr. Russ responded: "We would like to have as many of them
out there that we don't have to purchase until right before we want to start. Our idea is that
you don't want to inventory any more than you have to." He gave as an example, Dunlora,
where his company had committed to building on 1/3 of the lots. He explained: "Right now
I am trying to buy them one -week ahead of when I want to apply for a building permit."
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Russ how many houses his company likes to build in a year. Mr. Russ
responded that recently the "mix" has been approximately 70 houses per year. He explained
that the number of houses is determined by "the structure of our organization."
Discusion to be continued at March 14, 5:15 work session.
Irm