HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 07 1995 PC Minutes3-7-95
MARCH 7, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 7,
1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning & Community Development; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. John
Shepard, Planner, Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Imhoff.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
February 21, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended.
ZMA-94-14 Highlands West Land Trust (applicant), 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
0A 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 the January 24, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff supported the request. Staffs summary of the
request follows:
The primary Comprehensive Plan issues related to this rezoning request are the
land use designations for the subject parcel and the provision for a new Route
240/Route 250 connector road. First, it must be decided whether a change to
the Comprehensive Plan for the portion of the property designated Industrial
Service should occur before proceeding with rezoning. This has been a typical
procedure in the past. Assessment of the portion of the property designated
Open Space does not support acquisition of this property for public use, and it
is found that low -density residential is an appropriate designation for this area.
The provision of some recreation facilities with any significant residential
development is recommended. Staff opinion is that the provision for the new
connector road through the subject parcel is adequate.
In summary, this proposal is in line with the Comprehensive Plan goal of
containing the vast majority of residential development within designated
growth areas and low -density residential appears to be an appropriate land use
for at least that portion of the property not designated for industrial use. Staff
opinion is that the portion of the property designated for industrial use that
would be lost is not a significant loss to the industrial land inventory. The plan
and proffers provide adequately for the proposed 240/250 connector road.
/v :3
3-7-95 s
`°*"'` While certain features of the development scheme, such as optimal buffering
from adjoining uses and preservation of all historic features, are not ensured,
the major issues of compatibility are addressed.
M
Subject to the finding by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary to support this
rezoning, staff recommends approval of this rezoning request with (the
applicant's proffers).
Ms. Huckle asked what steps could be taken to ensure that the connector road would actually
be built and would "not be held hostage" by future residents of this development. Though Mr.
Lilley pointed out that the road is shown on the plan, Ms. Huckle said that "had not done any
good" in the past. Mr. Davis responded to Ms. Huckle's question: "I don't think there is
any way to prohibit public opinion from being against building a I I0-foot right-of-way road
in a development. There are steps you can take to require disclosure. Our ordinances don't
require it, but if the applicant is sensitive to (your concern), he could proffer that he would
put in everyone's deed who buys in that section, a notice that there will be a right-of-way
dedicated for a potential future road, or we could come up with other types of notice
requirements that could be implemented. But, in reality, from my experience, and I am sure
from yours as well, it doesn't really matter. Some people are still going to oppose it if they
come first. ... There is nothing in our development ordinances that would require that sort of
notice." Mr. Davis pointed out, however, that the Real Estate laws require that realtors
disclose potential things which would have an effect on property. He thought most realtors
would disclose the existence of that right-of-way for anything that is directly adjacent to it.
The obligation for that disclosure, however, gets less clear for properties further away from
the right-of-way.
Mr. Dotson said he had thought of the same question as Ms. Huckle. He thought the
applicant might wish to address this question.
Mr. Jenkins asked how much land the county owns in the settling basin (Lickinghole Creek).
Mr. Lilley said the total is approximately 69 acres with 30 acres being in the pond.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. Mr. Craig's comments and answers to
Commission questions included the following:
--This is an entirely new, more accurate plan, with new topo, new road alignment, and
engineered roads. It addresses many of the concerns expressed by the Commission at the
January 3, 1995 meeting.
--The applicant would like to come back at a later time to _request a rezoning (to
Industrial or Neighborhood Service) on the westernmost parcel (approximately 3 acres). It
has been left as RA at this time to provide a buffer between the residential and industrial.
--"We will do whatever you like as to the future connector road. We constantly have
that problem but we're willing to work with you and put it in the deeds if you so desire."
/n 41
3-7-95
--The existing 2-story house will be retained as a clubhouse. A swimming pool will
be built close to the clubhouse. A soccer field will be provided. That has been proffered.
--A greenbelt has been proffered.
--A I I0-foot right-of-way has been proffered.
--"We have proffered the screening and this plan is proffered."
Attempting to clarify the intent of the applicant's proffers, Mr. Dotson asked what was meant
by "the rest of the right-of-way." Mr. Craig responded: "The rig t-ii way f,r t is GYV-L.3v
connector." Mr. Dotson asked: "So it would be conveyed at such tune as the public owned
the land up to 240 and all the way to 250?" Mr. Craig responded affirmatively. Mr. Craig
also confirmed that the proffer of that conveyance would "run in perpetuity."
Mr. Craig confirmed, as pointed out by Mr. Jenkins, that the applicant does not own the land
on the north side of the railroad. Mr. Jenkins wanted the road to be addressed in as much
detail as possible. (This issue is addressed again later.)
Mr. Dotson wondered how the location for the soccer field had been selected. Mr. Craig
explained that the applicant intends for this to be a "pedestrian/neighborhood soccer field"
which most people will walk to. Parking will be in the area of the clubhouse. There are
plans for a walkway down to the soccer field. Mr. Dotson asked if there was room to put the
soccer field closer to the clubhouse. Mr. Craig explained such a placement would take up
numerous residential units. He also stated the applicant "wants to discourage this from being
a Crozet soccer field." It is intended that it be a neighborhood field. Mr. Dotson asked if
there would be a chance to look at the exact placement of the field during subsequent
approvals. Mr. Craig responded: "We will be bringing before you a site plan, probably
within 90 days."
Mr. Dotson asked if the applicant planned to rehabilitate the 2-story house. Mr. Craig
responded affirmatively.
Referring to proffer No. 4, Mr. Dotson asked if the 50-foot width for the greenbelt was
required by county ordinance. Mr. Craig responded: "No, it's not in the county ordinance."
Mr. Dotson thought there might be places where the width might be narrower or wider than
the 50 feet. He felt the 50-foot proffer "seems unnecessarily to be tying your hands. I
wouldn't want it to be a situation where, in order to meet the letter of the proffer--50--you
lost a lot." Mr. Craig responded: "What we would ultimately like to have is a path all the
way along the river. We would very much_ support that, but 1 understand we don't have the
land all the way down from Lickinghole Creek, all the way up the creek."
Mr. Dotson noted that some Commissioners have recently expressed concerns about low -
density development, i.e. densities which are below the Comprehensive Plan designation. He
said: "I notice that you're requesting R-4, but proposing fewer units than that would allow,
not to exceed 277." He asked if the applicant would "be willing to proffer also a minimum
of, let's say, 2 units/acre, which would be 230, just so that we have a range in which this
ER
3-7-95 4
would fall, not just a ceiling." Mr. Craig responded: "That is an interesting idea. The
existing Highlands has 191 units, or lots, already developed that are very high density. So I
am not sure there is a market for more attached units, and I think to get 230, you would have
to have some attached." Mr. Dotson: "You're suggesting 277; this is to say considerably
below that would be the floor." Mr. Craig responded: "I think we could do that. I would
just like to point out that the market has substantial high density lots already there. The
absorption in Highlands is in the neighborhood of 40 units/year. So you're talking about a 6-
year supply." Mr. Dotson noted: "2 units/acre, though, is pretty low. It's a little higher than
we've seen as the average (1.7), but it is not much about that; it is still pretty low." Mr.
Dotson concluded: "That was a thought. I don't know if you'd be willing to amend the
proffers." Mr. Craig: "I think we could make that work."
Mr. Jenkins again brought up the road issue. He said he "could visualize us having a road
from Park Street that connects here, before I see this 240-250 connector.... I just think the
practicality of a road from Park Street over here is a reality that may be long before we ever
have the other. So, I am just saying if you, or someone else, is able to acquire the land that
goes to where Park is --then we would have land being developed from Park Street down to
this property, and you've made this proffer, but now we can't get across the road because
Acme, or whoever owns this land where we are going across to --now we still can't get to 240
because of that. I just need that satisfied." Mr. Craig responded: "I would very much like to
address that if I could. This plan takes that into account on every aspect. We probably could
not afford to do this neighborhood, and build a half -million dollar bridge, if we weren't going
to have additional properties in the future. The proffer for the I I0-foot right-of-way is worded
such that we could build a 2-1ane road all the way to Park Street. It is my desire and intent,
if I can acquire the adjoining property, to build a 2-lane road all the way to Park Street that is
pretty --not a 4-lane highway." Mr. Jenkins was pleased with Mr. Craig's response. Mr.
Jenkins added: "Then, at that point, that it comes down here and it's got to go this way. So
we have to get it understood --this should be named Park Street when you build it." Mr. Craig
responded: "I"d like to name it Park Street right now."
Ms. Huckle asked for clarification of proffer No. 2 which states that "...owner may provide
recreational facilities in lieu of soccer field at owner's option...." Mr. Craig explained he had
worded that proffer at staffs request. It was his understanding staff "wanted some flexibility"
in the event the soccer field may not be what everybody wants. Mr. Craig expressed a
willingness to delete the second sentence of proffer No. 2 if that was the Commission's desire.
After staffs further explanation, there was no request for the applicant to amend the proffer.
Ms. Vaughan asked for a clarification of proffer No. 3. Mr. Craig responded: "The intent of
that is (though) I'd like to be here forever, I'm probably not going to be. The Homeowner's
Association will be there forever, so they would take over the maintenance. If you held me
responsible for the maintenance 50 years from now, I probably wouldn't maintain it very
well." Mr. Blue pointed out that the proffer, as worded, is reasonably standard, i.e. "the
developer is never held responsible, in perpetuity." Mr. Davis added: "The proffers run with
/Dp
09
3-7-95
the land. When the developer transfers ownership to the Homeowner's Association, they
would be responsible for it at any rate."
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
--Phil Unger, adjacent property owner - He was strongly opposed to this request being
acted upon separate from the overall Comprehensive Plan Review. He felt decisions made on
this piece of property will have far-reaching impact on Crozet. He commented specifically on
the possible loss of industrial potential for property adjacent to this property, and also on the
loss of open space.
--Tom Loach - He pointed out that the Crozet Study "called for pullback of the eastern
portion of the industrial service in order to make it consistent with the underlying zoning and
replace it with open space designation. The removal of this designation would ensure the
preservation of this location for agricultural -forestal area." He concluded: "So if you're
going to change, from a community perspective, make sure that what is going to replace it is
as valuable to the community as what the open space would be." He expressed concerns
about the lack of infrastructure, particularly the inadequacy of the elementary school. He felt
"ways to measure the effects of cumulative growth" were lacking.
--Ms. Ellen Waft - She expressed strong opposition to the loss of open space. She
commented particularly on the beauty of the Walton farm.
--Mr. John Marston - He felt the Comprehensive Plan should be adhered to.
--Mr. Quinton Royer - He spoke in favor of the proposal. He was skeptical that the
adjacent industrially designated property would develop with industrial uses given the distance
from either an interstate highway or an airport.
--Ms. Eleanor Santic - She noted that there had been no proffer of the open space. She
pointed out that the proffer is unclear as to whether any of the historic outbuildings will be
saved. She referred to various sections of the staff report where staff had made recommendations
that had not been addressed by the applicant's proffers.
--Mr. Scott Peyton - He pointed out that once open space has been developed it can never
be reclaimed.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Craig to respond to Ms. Santic's question about the outbuildings. Mr.
Craig responded: "We would very much like to save the 2 westernmost outbuildings, the oldest
on the site. We'll be coming back with a site plan and we will work with you at that time. We
would very much like to keep the 2 oldest outbuildings." Mr. Dotson asked if those had
intentionally been omitted from the proffer. Mr. Craig responded: "I am not sure we can (save
them). I think we can and I think you'll be disappointed in me if we don't. But when we bring
the site plan before you, you'll have more information and more facts and, at that time, you can
make a decision not to approve the site plan unless we save those two outbuildings." In response
to Ms. Huckle's question as what the problem is with saving these 2 buildings, Mr. Craig
explained that the problems are related to the location of the pool, the existing 2-story house, and
the road curvature.
/a.7
3-7-95 6
Mr. Blue asked if staff had any further comments on issues raised by the public. Mr. Lilley
noted that many of the issues raised are covered in the staff report. Regarding comments about
school capacity, he stated that the staff report does not directly address that issue. Rather it
discusses, normally, those school facilities which have projects identified in the CIP in terms of
how this development might relate to those.
Referring to the Comprehensive Plan issue, Mr. Nitchmann said it has been his experience that
staff always analyzes these requests in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. He asked Mr. Lilley:
"Do you feel you have done anything different in this case?" Mr. Lilley responded: "No. I
think we have tried to keep the Comprehensive Plan as the primary focus and whether this
development would be supportable by the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, there is some
unusualness in terms of the existing designations and having a sort of contingency to the existing
designations. But that has been the primary thing that we have dealt with. I don't think there has
been anything unusual about that." Mr. Cilimberg added: "I think the report clearly points out
that, first of all, the Commission and Board need to determine whether or not, without
amendment to the Plan, you are ready to go forward with a rezoning. One of the aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan, on the Open Space determination, we have that information from the
Director of Parks and Recreation. So we feel that element has been fully addressed. The
question of the industrial area, obviously without the amendments to the Plan that might occur, or
the changes to the Plan that would occur in the review process, have only been addressed based
on a specific site of this specific area. So you have to decide, and the Board ultimately, if you
are comfortable with moving forward without that done."
Mr. Blue said: "But it was staffs recommendation that in this case, that you did not think this
was in conflict and there was no great problem in not having a Comprehensive Plan amendment
for this particular hearing." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "We didn't believe that that industrial area
was of significance to have that wait for the review of the Plan."
Mr. Dotson asked: "(Is staff) satisfied that the placement of that 240-250 connector, where it
crosses this site, has been adequately evaluated, that that is a desirable location for it?" Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the study Mr. Lilley referred to (done several years ago) had the road in
this location and this location is more in conformity than had been the previous location shown
by the application.
Ms. Vaughan asked why staff viewed the industrial area issue as "relatively minor." Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "Based on analysis of location and acreage."
Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the road capacity of Rt. 240. She noted that a member of
the public had said that the road is considered "nontolerable" by VDOT. She asked if staff had
discussed this issue with VDOT recently. Mr. Lilley explained that he had discussed the matter
with the staff Transportation Planner who had discussed it directly with VDOT. Mr. Cilimberg
pointed out that Rt. 240 is a primary road and he did not think primary roads received "non -
tolerable" classifications. He stated further: "Obviously because the state has said they are
looking at a 240 corridor through here, they have concems--there is no doubt. We have known
'ilow, that; we knew it in the last Comp Plan.. That is why the 240-250 connector was shown in that
Comp Plan." Ms. Huckle: "I think there is some question as to whether maybe the fact that
/D9
3-7-95 7
there hasn't been more interest in the industrial land is that industrial people are concerned about
the state of the road."
On the issues of the schools, Ms. Huckle commented: "According to the figures that I got from
the Board of Education as to their per pupil cost/year, it would seem that 268 projected children
from this development would cost $1,529,476/year. I think that is something we need to think
about, because if the schools are overburdened, we will also have to have more capital
expenditures in order to increase the schools. But this is just for the maintenance, the teachers
and the transportation."
Noting that one of the Commission's options at this time is to defer action until the Camp Plan
Land use Plan update is complete, Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis to comment on any possible
statutory limitations. Mr. Davis responded: "The Planning Commission needs to make a
recommendation to the Board within 90 days of the application, subject to any deferrals of the
applicant, and then the Board would have the ability to defer action up to 12 months. Beyond
that, the developer could request that a decision be made."
Ms. Huckle was in favor of a deferral. She explained: "Since we are so close to the
Comprehensive Plan review, it just doesn't seem sensible to jump in here before we have really
had a chance to look at it as to the whole part of the whole picture, rather than just one small
part of it."
Mr. Nitchmann did not agree with Ms. Huckle. He explained: "I view the planning process as
an ongoing, evolutionary process we go through. In order to accomplish that process we set in
place a number of years ago some guidelines, and these guidelines are known as the
Comprehensive Plan. It seems like every time something like this comes up, even two years ago,
we said 'wait 'til the Comprehensive Plan review' which was then two years off. I understand
that we're close to it, but at the same time I think this particular site development here satisfies
some of the things that we have been looking for. It is close to infrastructure,and it may help us
with affordable housing issues. I think we also have to bear in mind that someplace along the
line we have to be concerned about the rights of the person who owns the land. In regard to
schools --schools are expensive --and if you are implying that if we don't approve this we are not
going to have those expensive schools, I think that's wrong because I think whether housing goes
here or someplace else in the county, there is going to be an increase in the number of children
in our school system, regardless of this particular application. To deny this because we think
there is a problem with schools --that we already know that there is and the School Board is
trying to address --is not a critical issue. I feel the staff has done what they normally do in their
analysis in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and I believe that document is meant to be a
guideline and wasn't to stop the planning process or the evolution of the requirements that we
have to serve the greater number of the people. I think this subdivision serves the greater
number of the people. The applicant has offered proffers which address the concerns we
discussed in January and I believe some of the other issues he has taken into consideration make
it worthwhile. I can support that we move forward with this, out of the Comp Plan review."
Mr. Dotson said he had visited the site. He agreed with some of the public comment about the
beauty of the site and said "it seems almost too beautiful to use any portion of it for industrial."
He pointed out the open space designation in the Comprehensive Plan indicated that it was
/09
3-7-95
1�ww subject to further study by the Recreation Department. That study has been done and though the
Comp Plan has not yet been amended, he felt "we are in a position to move forward." He noted
that the Comp Plan review is currently taking place and, in that sense, he did not feel that taking
action on this request was "jumping way ahead" of the process. He said he was prepared "to
declare our intent to go ahead and amend the plan."
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZMA-94-14 for Highlands West Land Trust (applicant), Lady
B. Walton (owner), be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers and with the understanding that the applicant may wish to
amend his proffers, as he has indicated a willingness to do, prior to the Board hearing, as
follows:
--The collector road will be mentioned in the deeds of the abutting property;
--The 50-foot greenway will be an average of 50 feet;
--A specified minimum of 230 units.
Mr. Dotson said he felt this would "move us a step closer to achieving the Plan for the area by
beginning to open up this whole area that the Plan does call for residential." He pointed out that
the property has water and sewer and the community has a lot invested in the Crozet Interceptor.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Vaughan casting the
dissenting votes.
(SUB 95-009) - Ednam Section 2 Preliminary Plat - Property, described as Tax Map 59D92,
Section 6, parcel 1, and Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1, is located east of the Ednam Manor House
and bounded by Worthington Drive in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
At Ms. Huckle's request, Ms. Hipski explained the meaning and characteristics of open space.
Regarding this particular proposal, she explained: "There is a lot of history behind Ednam. At
previous reviews it seemed that some of the areas that were designated for open space were
actually buildable areas and that is why there is now a discrepancy of what is actually now open
space and what was originally approved. The applicant is not going below what he originally
proffered, nor below the ordinance requirements --he is exceeding that." She explained that, in
the area that is covered in this review, there will be a modification of the open space as it was
originally approved on the application plan, i.e. the applicant wants to develop some of the land
that was shown as open space on the original plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "In order to do
that there was a determination ivhich needed to be made, under Section 8.5.6.3, that will allow
some of that open space area to be used for development. In other words, to remove that open
space from the overall plan and let it be developed, and that determination was to allow, with
certain conditions, that to happen." Mr. Cilimberg also pointed out that the County Attorney has
advised that "any contesting of that determination isn't really the Commission's role, through
subdivision plat approval. Rather, it would be through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) that
//D
3-7-95
IN
someone could appeal that determination. That narrows the Commission's focus on the plat
consideration, with that determination already having been made."
Mr. Cilimberg described the Commission's options as follows:
--Approve the plat based on the determination which has already been made.
--Deny the plat based on a determination that other aspects of the subdivision ordinance
are not being adhered to here. (Staff has not identified any such aspects.)
Mr. Dotson pointed out that most of the area where the subdivision is proposed was designated
for multi -story condominiums. He understood the Homeowner's Association prefers more units
similar to what already exists, and not condominiums and multi -story units. (The applicant was
to address this statement later.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Caleb Stowe. He described the history of the property,
particularly the history of the green space. Approved in 1980, he stressed that the original plan,
which was for 7 sections and showed large, "sweeping" areas of open space was meant to be
only a guide and it would have been impossible to achieve the open space as originally shown.
The designations on all the sections were "semi -attached condominiums, multi -story,
condominium lour -rise." The current issue is "little slivers of land between section A, the
condominium designated propertyy, and section F." In section F, whcre the neighbors JL :
have some contention with the plan, the designation was for 8-12 units, but only 5 were built. In.
section A, the designation had been for 40-060 condominium units. Only 14 units have been built
thus far. In recent months the community has indicated that they would like to see the density
reduced for the remaining development of section A. The developer has generally embraced
that idea." Currently, there are 2 owners "who feel a little infringed upon by the change of the
sweeping, smooth motion of the green space areas." He said the developer "would like to
reduce the density to satisfy the overall wishes of the community to see a lower density." He
passed around drawings showing the types of dwellings which will be built in this section. He
said it was impossible to achieve massive open spaces when putting 140 units on 33 acres. He
also showed photographs of the neighborhoods which point out "the problem you encounter when
trying to do a duster concept, in putting a lot of housing units on a small picce of land." iic
acknowledged that the applicant is requesting a change in some of the coniiiion open area behind
2 owners' property, which is an infringement. However, on the positive side, no condominiums
are proposed close to their property. He pointed out that rather than 25% open space, there is
approximately 44% of common, open area (including roads, parking lots and all amenities which
serve this type of neighborhood). He stressed that the applicant has "no contest with the
neighbors and would like very much to accommodate their wishes, but there is a financial
problem involved in giving up more of the space. or more of the density, which is a critical
problem to the community."
j3ublic comment .vas invited.
Mr. Frank Buck, fepfesenting Ms. Baganz and Mf. and'Mus. Dahl (tlic p1ovuriy owners
referenced by Mr. Stowe), addressed the Commission. He acknowledged there has a been a
reduction of density, from what was proposed in the early i 98Vs, but he felt that reduction was a
result in market demand, and was not a "compromise" on behalf of his clients as had been
suggested by Mr. Stowe. He explained that the plan which had been submitted "at that time" had
3-7-95 to
provided for a much larger buffer between his clients' property and the rear of the development.
At the time his clients had purchased their property it had been represented to them that the open
space area would remain as a buffer area. He said his clients are now facing the reduction of the
buffer area from 40-50 feet to a 15-foot strip, plus a 6-foot setback, between their house and the
house which will be behind them. He said the possibility of a 10-foot common area, plus a 15-
foot easement for a buffer zone, with substantial plantings, had been discussed with the
developer, but no actual agreement has been reached on that possibility. He felt his clients would
have supported a 25-foot strip, a described above, if it had been recommended by staff. His
clients recognized there had to be compromise on both sides.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the 15-foot strip of common area which was specified in conditions,
was primarily to handle a separation and to allow for pedestrian circulation. There was an
anticipation that there may need to be an easement for the landscaping. So the buffer will not
just be 15-feet; it will be 15 feet plus whatever is necessary to handle the landscaping. He
concluded: "So I don't know how far away this is actually going to end up being from the 25-
feet that Mr. Buck just mentioned." Mr. Blue asked why that would not have been settled prior
to the Commission hearing. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "Ms. Hipski has been working with them
and I understood that was implied by these three conditions." He explained that the specific
dimensions are not specified in the conditions because the landscape plan has not yet been
reviewed. He added: "As I mentioned earlier, this is not before you for a decision; that is a
decision that we are basically working with now under 8.5.6.3 to allow for this reduction of
common area if a 15-foot strip of common area is provided plus the landscaping buffer."
Mr. Stowe said the developer does not like to deal with easements, because of problems with
passage of title, maintenance, etc. He said: "So instead of a 10-foot open common area, we'd
prefer to go ahead and dedicate 15 feet, making it the homeowners' property, dedicated to open
common. We really want to be fair to the neighbors. One of the things we would be willing to
do is to plant this property line in any way that an expert might tell us to do it that would be
favorable to them. The other thing is we have a fence we can put on that property line. The
third thing we can do, and we have proposed this to them, we would be happy to bring them into
advising the Architectural Review Committee as to the desirability of the size and placement of
these houses."
Public comment continued.
Mr. Paul Proffit, Manager of the Community Association, addressed the Commission. He said
the Board of Directors supports this plan, including the lower density with the proposed buffer
zone --"the larger the buffer the better."
Ms. Huekle asked what size houses were proposed to be built in this area. Mr. Tom Muncaster,
engineer for the project, responded to Ms. Huckle's question. He said the smallest house would
be 2-story with a 1,200 square foot footprint. He did not know the size of larger houses because
the larger lots have not yet been delineated.
i*w- There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
//�L
3-'7-95 11
Mr. Davis clarified the matter that was before the Commission: "What is before you is whether
or not you are going to approve the subdivision plat based on the subdivision and zoning
ordinance requirements. Mr. Cilimberg's decision to modify the open space is a decision that is
not appealable to you. It is a decision that could be appealed to the BZA. As far as you're
concerned, at this point, you can accept Mr. Cilimberg's decision on open space and then
determine whether or not the other ordinance requirements are met. The other option that the
Commission would have is that you as a body could appeal Mr. Cilimberg's decision to the BZA
if you chose to do that." (Mr. Blue responded: "We're not going to do that.")
Mr. Blue noted that staff has not identified any aspect of the proposal which does not meet the
ordinance requirements.
Mr. Dotson noted that the application plan had shown multi -story condominiums on these parcels,
but had not been specific as to the type of residence i.e. "it had not said single family, duplex,
attached, and all options up to multi -story condominium," He said: "1_n a conventional
development, single family, even if it is a multi -family zoning district, is a by -right use. So my
question is, is this in conformity with the zoning if it is not multi -story and condominiums, since
that is literally what it says?"
Mr. Davis responded: "I am not sure that I can answer that question without looking at the plans
more closely. It is my understanding that in this planned community, that's the maximum density
level and it doesn't prohibit less intense development of those areas."
Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know if Ms. Hipski had asked the Zoning Administrator for a
determination on that question. Ms. Hipski said she had not. She said her review had focused
on the open space issue because it was the controversial issue.
After conferring briefly with Mr. Davis, Mr. Cilimberg. said he did not think Mr. Dotson's
question had been answered. He explained: "I think the specific question as to whether or not
this zoning intended only condominium multi -story terrace development in section A would have
to be a determination of the Zoning Administrator which staff has not requested."
Mr. Blue commented: "If it is determined that it does have to be what's called for in the plan,
that's going to open up a can of worms for everything all over the county. Mr. Cilimberg
disagreed. He explained: "I don't know that that's the case because in most PUD's the uses are
not specified as to unit type, or if they are, they are specified normally at a lower density unit
type." Mr. Blue said: "But in this development it is specified." Mr. Cilimberg said it was one
of very few which are specified for this type of unit. Mr. Blue said: "And it's 90% developed
with much lower density than was originally called for." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the
location referred to by Mr. Dotson only had multi -story condominium specified in Section A. All
other sections were identified as attached and semi -attached. Mr. Cilimberg said: "So they really
don't have a problem in Ednam if, in fact, it is a problem at all. It is a very unusual
circumstance and one which the Zoning Administrator has not been asked to look into before."
Mr. Cilimberg said staff could ask the Zoning Administrator to address this question if so
directed by the Commission.
113
3-1-95 12
;;,AW Mr. Davis confirmed that the item could be deferred if the Commission desired, or it could be
given preliminary approval and the issue would have to be resolved prior to the final approval.
"If the Zoning Administrator determined that it was condominium multi -story, that would stop
final approval of the plan."
Mr. Dotson said he would be satisfied with the preliminary approval approach as described by
Mr. Davis.
It was decided the following condition would be added: "Determination of consistency between
this subdivision and the zoning on this parcel be granted by the Zoning Administrator."
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the Ednam Section 2 Preliminary Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final plat for signature until
tentative approvals for the following conditions have been met. The final plat shall not be signed
until the following conditions are met:
a. Albemarle County Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
b. Albemarle County Department of Engineering approval of detention plans and
calculations:
c. Albemarle County Department of Engineering approval of final private road plans;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a Runoff Control Permit;
e. Inspections Department approval of fireflow requirements;
f. Staff approval of a minor site plan amendment for the manor house located on Tax
Map 60 parcel 28AI and parcel 28A2;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans and
calculations.
h. Compliance with conditions of open space modification as outlined in Attachment D of
this report.
i. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of drainage easements.
j. Determination of consistency between this subdivision and the zoning on this parcel be
granted by the Zoning Administrator.
2. Administrative approval of final site development plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition has been met:
a. Fire official final approval.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle said she would support the motion, but reluctantly.
��7
3-7-95
The motion passed unanimously.
13
(Slims 9-5-025) - Atkins Request for Relief from Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Section 18-
36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance - Proposal for relief from provisions of Section 18-36(f) of
the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a separate driveway to serve Lot 6 and Lot 5 in Section 3 of
the Saddlcwood Farm subdivision. The property, described as Tax Map 105, parcel 113, is
shown on the Subdivision Plat signed on December 18, 1979, as Lot 6 in Section 3 of
Saddlewood Farm. The property is located on the south side of Route 618 approximately 1 mile
east of the intersection with Route 729 in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request based on the
following: "The applicant has not demonstrated this request would alleviate a clearly
demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent
properties due to existing development, topography or other physical considerations. Based on
the fact that other lots have installed joint entrances, approval of this request may be 'a special
privilege or convenience."
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, addressed the Commission. Mr. Atkins explained that after
he had purchased the lot he had contacted VDOT, at the direction of staff, and VDOT had
determined there would no problem in issuing the driveway permit, He had believed this was all
he had to do, It was only after the builder could not get a building permit that he was made
aware of this situation. The builder has said that shifting the house (to make it possible to use
the _joint driveway) will cause an addition $2000 expense. He said he would not have purchased
the lot if he had known he could not have a separate driveway. Ms. Atkins pointed out that the
neighbors (with whom they would be sharing an driveway), have agreed to take full responsibility
for the joint driveway and have no objection to a separate driveway.
There was no public comment.
Mr, Blue said he had visited the site. He disagreed with staffs determination that the site was
"relatively level," Mr. Blue noted that joint driveways are no longer required, i.e. if that
subdivision was being recorded now, rather than when it had been, this would not be a problem.
He felt these were mitigating factors in consideration of this request.
Mr. Dotson addressed Mr. Davis: "When the County amends the Zoning Ordinance, a property
owner can go by the new rules, the old rules no longer exist. But when a subdivision has been
filed, even if the subdivision or zoning ordinance is changed, the way the subdivision was drawn,
with easements, requirements, etc. --those stay the same. That is the situation we face here, i.e.
that even though the ordinances would allow it, this is a recorded subdivision with these
conditions on it." Mr. Davis replied: "That's right. It's a plated restriction which, unless the
plat is vacated or otherwise granted relief by the Planning Commission, the conditions remain."
Mr. Davis: "So if we were to vote 'yes' on this we would be saying there is an unusual
circumstance in the case of this particular lot that justifies granting them relief but maintaining
the requirement on all the others." Mr. Davis responded: "That's correct."
// 5--
3-7-95
14
Mr. Blue pointed out: "And that unusual circumstance could be the additional cost that the
applicant would face or the fact that since it is not required any longer, we might feel this way
about anybody who (made a similar request)."
Mr. Nitchmann had also visited the site. He described how the driveway "drops off."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Atkins Request for Relief from Conditions of
Approval Pursuant to Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow a separate driveway
to serve Lot 6 and Lot 5 in Section 3 of Saddlewood Farm subdivision, be granted.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue stated he could support the motion, primarily because this has not been an ordinance
requirement since 1980, plus the fact that there is no safety concern about the separate driveway.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
WORK SESSION
CPA-95-01 Mill Creek
Staff asked if there were any questions about the staff report.
Mr. Blue said he had read the staff report and he was ready to schedule the item for public
hearing. All Commissioners agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
//K