Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 11 1995 PC Minuteson lm 4-11-95 APRIL 11, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 11, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and the Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and Dotson. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of March 28, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Hollymead Professional Center - Modification of Critical Slopes (Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-95-026 Home Display, T. Bachelor - Request for a site plan waiver to allow the construction of a model home on 1.5 acres zoned C-1, Commercial and in the Entrance Corridor District. The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 109, is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and the Kegler's access road in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Huckle asked if the screening applied to the entire site. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. He explained that is one of the conditions which will be approved by the Architectural Review Board. The applicant, Mr. Tom Bachelor, addressed the Commission. He described the model home as a Cape Cod style. He said there were no plans at present to place any other models on the site. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. fv�% cm 4-11-95 6 Club development on the east side of the Route 744/Route 731 intersection and in the southeastern quadrant of Club Drive/Route 731 intersection in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Pete Bradshaw. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Huckle asked if this was the applicant's final plat for this proposal. Mr. Bradshaw explained that this is not a site plan, rather it is a special permit. However, he said he felt the sketch was a fair representation of what is planned, but it is not intended that it be "set in stone." He said the project would most likely be a phased project, based on membership rates and economic conditions. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Bradshaw to explain the differences between this proposal and what was approved in 1994. Mr. Bradshaw confirmed that the plan had been shifted farther to the east to accommodate a larger pool. He said it was felt the original plan was too close to the Hall. This plan, with the additional parcel of land, will allow the facility to be farther from the Hall and will also allow the preservation of the hardwoods along Club Drive. He felt it was a good idea to include the extra parcel so that the entire 17.5 acres could be established as Club expansion. (It had not been intended, at the time of the last approval, that this extra parcel would be a part of this site plan.) Mr. Blue asked: "What will happen to the resident who is there now? Is there any intention of selling that later?" Mr. Bradshaw said it is intended that that land will not be sold. If anything, the residence which presently exists will be demolished. He explained the residence is currently being used for staff housing. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-94-40 for Keswick Corporation & Keswick Club L.P. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with SP-92-59 Keswick Acquisition Corporation and SP-95-54 Tom J. Curtis, Jr. 2. The clubhouse shall not exceed 6,250 square feet, the viewing stand shall not exceed 2,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall not exceed 5,200 square feet and the pool shall not exceed 6,500 square feet. n 4-11-95 7 3. Construction of the clubhouse and open air pavilion and all necessary improvements associated therewith, including required parking, is extended to commence not later than five (5) years from approval of SP-94-07. 4. Access for Tax Map 80 parcel 9A, shall be onto Route 731. 5. All improvements related to this special use permit shall be located on the eastern side of the pond located on parcel 9A only. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- ZMA-94-19 Virginia Land Trust - Petition to rezone 10.9 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 31 is located on the west side of Route 649 approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Community of Hollymead. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The staff report explained that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plans recommendations for this area and, therefore, staff recommended approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Rouell. He explained how the proposal has evolved over the last few months. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about anticipated price range, he estimated the range to be $135,000 to $150,000. It was noted that VDOT has determined that this section of Rt. 649 is "tolerable." Mr. Blue expressed surprise at this determination, noting the existence of a sharp curve between this property and Rt. 29. Ms. Vaughan asked what type of buffer will separate this development from Jefferson Village. Mr. Rouell explained that the existing wooded area will be maintained as much as possible. Mr. Blue pointed out that the construction of the sewer line would have an impact on the buffer area. Public comment was invited. Mr. James A. Dean (residing across the road from the subject property), addressed the Commission. He questioned how a buffer behind the property could be maintained given the small size of the lots. He asked how he could be assured the buffer along the front of the property would be maintained. (Ms. Hipski explained the landscaping that will be required. She said landscaping and buffering will be addressed at the time of *..v the final plat. She also said that the landscaping will be shown on the plat and thus the In 4-11-95 8 homeowner is made aware that those plantings must be maintained. She said she envisioned a 9-foot bike path, plus a 20-foot landscape easement. Landscaping will have to be planted, or bonded, before the final plat is signed. The County Attorney confirmed that the responsibility for maintaining the landscaping will pass to individual property owners at the time the lots are sold. He said, however, that the Commission could consider holding the developer responsible for the maintenance of the buffer, though typically that is passed on to the homeowners. Mr. Blue pointed out that the applicant has proffered this development and the notation regarding buffering is on the plat.) Mr. Dean asked about the proposed size of the sewer line which he thought was shown as a 20-inch line. (Staff corrected Mr. Dean, explaining that it was a 20-foot easement.) Mr.Dean expressed concern about adequate fire flow for this area. (Mr. Keeler noted the location of fire hydrants. He also said that the Fire Official will review the plans at the time of site review.) Mr. Dean asked why there was no open space or common areas shown. (Ms. Hipski explained that open space is not required because the minimum lot size has been met and this is not a PUD.) Mr. Dean wondered where the children from this development will play. He said the only open space in this area is on his property and he did not want his land to used as a play area. Ms. Huckle asked if something should be added which will ensure the 9-foot bike path, and the maintenance of the wooded buffer. (This question was addressed later.) I%W Public comment continued. Mr. Fred Gercke, Planning and Zoning Chairman of the Proffit Community Association, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the development of small parcels of land such as this along Proffit Road. He expressed concern about the impact on the small Proffit community and "the social liability of small tract developments in this type of location." He suggested that open space and less density would make these areas more livable. Dr. Jared Loewenstein, President of the Proffit Community Association, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the approval of small projects such as this while in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan Review. He was also concerned about the lack of open space in the development. Mr. Stuart Shifflett, an adjoining property owner, expressed opposition to the proposal. He was concerned about adding additional traffic on Proffit Road, which is already a dangerous road. He felt the development did not fit the character of the Proffit area. Mr. Byrd expressed opposition to the proposal, citing the same reasons as previous speakers. 09 M 4-11-95 9 The applicant, Mr. Rouell, again addressed the Commission. He said it was not his intent to "overbuild the area." He pointed out that the developer will extend the water line to serve this development. He pointed out that this will allow some of the Proffit residents to hook into the water line. On the issue of recreational amenities, he pointed out that Chris Green Lake is very near this development. At Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Rouell described some of his initial meetings with staff on this proposal. He said he had originally planned a 5 lot development, but staff had pointed out that utilities are available to the property and had suggested that he consider a higher density development because that is what is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Nitchmann wondered if the developer had given any thought to the fact that this price range will attract families with young children. He suggested one of the lots could have been reserved as a play area. Mr. Rouell pointed out that a neighborhood play area would add to homeowner's fees because of the associated maintenance and liability insurance. He indicated that this is not a large enough development to provide elaborate recreational amenities. Mr. Nitchmann indicated he understood the need for the higher density because the County wants to encourage infill and there will not be a lot of property available in the future which will have the utilities already in place. He concluded: "It's close to the infrastructure; it's close to the urban ring. Where does it make more sense to put the houses. Right there, or else we end up in North Garden or some place like that. It's a very complex problem." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Blue expressed disappointment that Commissioners Imhoff and Dotson were not present because this type of proposal, i.e. "to increase densities in areas where the Comp Plan calls for it so that we can protect the rural areas," is something they strongly support. He said he sympathized with the residents of Proffit who are living in an area that is now being subjected to "urban sprawl." Mr. Blue said the Plan is proffered and complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the County Attorney if there was any legal basis for a denial. Counsel replied: "Staff has identified that the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of low density--1-4 dwelling units/acre. If the Commission felt that the density that is proposed is inappropriate within that range (that it is too high for this particular parcel, despite the fact that the range is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan), that is something you could consider. In terms of the lack of recreational facilities --that is not required and I don't think that would be a basis for denial." cm 4-11-95 10 On the issue of density, Mr. Keeler noted that there have been discussions at Comp Plan work sessions about moving toward the higher end of the density ranges. He continued: "Over the years, low density has been a range of 1-4 units, with an average of 2.5 units/acre. For some period of time it appeared that the County was reluctant ever to go above 2.5, so you would never get an average of 2.5 because it would always be less than that, or underdeveloped. The recommended range in the Plan is 1- 4 units/acre. You are not obligated to approve any rezoning that is, in your opinion, inconsistent." Mr. Blue said: "But this would be within the range of 14" Mr. Keeler replied: "Yes, sir." On the issue of recreation, Mr. Keeler pointed out that when recreational amendments were taken to the Board of Supervisors, they had explicitly deleted any recreation requirements for single-family detached dwellings because it was felt that if there is a yard, children will play in the yard. He said if there is now a different feeling about this issue, then the regulations need to be reconsidered. Ms. Huckle felt this was a difficult dilemma. She sympathized with the Proffit citizens, but she noted that the County must plan for the growth that is anticipated and is trying to provide for that growth where there is water and sewer available. Mr. Jenkins said he, too, was sympathetic to this situation, but he did not feel there was a resolution which would meet the County's goals and at the same time meet the concerns of the Proffit residents. He pointed out that the applicant's original plan for a less dense development would not have been a good solution because it would have used individual septic tanks and wells. He concluded: "It's not an easy decision, but feel we don't have any choice but to approve this one." Mr. Blue advised the audience that this area is currently being discussed as possible growth area because utilities are reasonably accessible and, thus, it is an area which lends itself for growth. He questioned whether the growth area will actually get closer to the Proffit community (beyond this piece of land) in the 5 years covered by this Comp Plan review, but he said he felt there would be pressure for it extend farther north, parallel to Rt. 29. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-94-19 for Virginia Land Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as set forth in a letter dated April 6, 1995, from Charles W. Hurt to Yolanda A. Hipski, and that the plat be clarified to reflect the applicant's proffer prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing. Ms. Vaughan seconded the motion. Discussion: /? 3 4-11-95 2 rr MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SDP-95-026 for T. Bachelor be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued until the following approvals have been obtained: a. Department of Engineering approval. b. Zoning Department approval. c. Inspections Department approval. d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval. e. Health Department approval. f. Planning Department approval. g. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- ZMA-95-02 H & H Partnership - Petition to rezone approximately 1.88 acres from R-2, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 55B, is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 631 and 1-64 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 5. and ZMA-94-40 H & H Partnership - Petition to rezone approximately 2.163 acres from R-2 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 55D, is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 631 and 1-64 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 5. Mr. Fritz distributed to the Commission copies of a letter which staff had received after the preparation of the staff report. (This letter was later identified as being from a "property owner across the street.") Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both requests. Mr. Fritz described the main issue as being the "entrance on Rt. 631 and its proximity to 1-64." The staff report explained: "The Comprehensive Plan recommends addressing issues of access at the time of rezoning. At this interchange, the Plan also recommends a minimum separation from interstate ramps to commercial entrances of 800 feet." This property has frontage which is 450 feet from the ramp. Staff explained that the proposed entrance location is where an existing entrance (crossover) is already located. The report explained further: "In order to locate an entrance 800 feet from the In 4-11-95 ramps, property not controlled by the applicant, and currently zoned R-2 and used for residential use, would need to be involved. Due to topographic constraints --the steep slopes associated with the stream --access to this area of Community Service from a single entrance located 800 feet from the ramp is unlikely and would involve extensive effort." The staff report stated the site could be served by an adequate entrance, with access being limited to a point farthest from 1-64. Ms. Huckle recalled Comp Plan discussions about the 250 East area, particularly the possibility of changing the designation of the motel. She recalled that it had been decided it was too close to the 1-64 entrance to be considered for commercial use. She asked: "What is the difference between this and that?" Mr. Fritz was not familiar with those designations. He noted, however, that this particular interchange has a shorter minimum distance from entrances, based on the design and functional capabilities of the area. Ms. Huckle wondered if the shorter distance might be because 5th Street has had less traffic in the past. In response to Ms. Vaughan's question about the Interstate Interchange Development guidelines, as related to this request, Mr. Fritz explained how staff had reviewed this request. He said many of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance address the issues in the IID guidelines. ,%W Ms. Huckle asked if part of the land will have to be filled in order to make it developable. Mr. Fritz responded that there will necessarily be some grading in order to accommodate the use. He said the slopes on the site are not that severe. Mr. Blue answered Ms. Huckle's question about fill saying that probably some of the site would have to be filled. Mr. Fritz said he could not answer Ms. Huckle's question without having seen the site plan. The applicant later addressed this question, explaining that some parts of the site will have to be filled. He could not say, without a site plan, whether it would need to be filled completely. Mr. Nitchmann asked if once the property is rezoned it could then be divided up and sold to others. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Heischmann. He offered to answer questions. Addressing Mr. Nitchmann's earlier question about the slope of the land, he said the street itself is the highest point and it slopes both ways. He said there is water coming out of the culvert, which made him believe there is a spring, possibly under the road. Mr. Heischmann said he has no concrete plans for the property at this time but he mentioned the possibility of a service station/restaurant, "something which would probably get 2/3 of it's traffic from the Interstate." In 4-11-95 4 Public comment was invited. Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. She suggested that it would be helpful for future petitions if a map could be displayed showing what the property will look like if the request is approved, including the use that is proposed. Mr. Herbert Green, owner of property across from the proposed entrance, addressed the Commission. He felt large trucks using this entrance would create a dangerous situation. He also expressed concern about environmental degradation. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said she could not support the request. She quoted from Attachment C of the staff report: "Subdivision of land within one -quarter mile of an Interstate ramp should not be permitted unless access is provided by a single entrance and the entrance is at least 800 feet." She pointed out the entrance proposed is only 450 feet from the ramp. Mr. Nitchmann said he shared some of Ms. Huckle's concerns. He pointed out that the vehicle trips per day can vary greatly with the different uses that could be allowed on the site. He noted that though it might not be difficult for cars to enter the site from 1-64, those cars will then have to cross Rt. 631 to get back onto 1-64. He said his main concerns were the wide variety of uses possible and the short distance from the interstate ramp. Mr. Jenkins noted that the Comp Plan recommends the property as Highway Commercial. He wondered why the property across the street (zoned Residential) had not also been recommended for Highway Commercial. (Mr. Keeler pointed out that the land across the street is already developed as Residential and has been for many years.) Ms. Vaughan expressed agreement with Commissioner Huckle's and Nitchmann's comments. Mr. Blue noted that staff has recommended approval and the request meets the requirements of the Ordinance. He pointed out that the 800 foot separation is a recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, not the Zoning Ordinance. He also noted that VDOT has said it can approve the 450 foot distance. He asked the Deputy County Attorney to comment on a possible basis for a recommendation for denial. Counsel replied: "The Commission needs a reasonable basis to deny the request. Staff has identified the distance issue as an unfavorable factor and, despite VDOT's position, I believe it is within your discretion, that it would be appropriate, for you to look to that 4-11-95 5 *ONW factor as a basis for denial." Mr. Blue stated: "It is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan." Counsel replied: "That's correct." Mr. Nitchmann asked Counsel to comment on whether the applicant should be consulted on his preference for a denial or a deferral. Counsel responded: "In this case, I don't think it's appropriate (for the Commission to do that)." MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that ZMA-95-02 for H & H Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on the fact that the proposed location of the entrance does not comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because it does not meet the minimum recommended separation distance from the Interstate ramp. Ms. Vaughan seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Blue asked if any of the discussion or comments of this meeting had caused staff to change their recommendation for approval. Mr. Fritz explained that though staff had identified the separation issue, the fact that VDOT had had no objections had shifted staffs emphasis from the separation issue to land use. He agreed, however, that the separation issue is a significant one. Mr. Blue said he questioned staffs position on the land use issue because this would result in Highway Commercial directly across the street from Residential. Mr. Fritz said staff had considered the topographic differences of the properties. With the road being the high point, the subject property would be less objectionable. Mr. Fritz also pointed out that the ARB will be involved in screening this site at the time of site plan approval. The motion for denial passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-95-03 for H & H Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on the fact that the proposed location of the entrance does not comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because it does not meet the minimum recommended separation distance from the Interstate ramp. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SP-94-40 Keswick Corporation & Keswick Club L.P. - Proposal to amend SP-94-07 to allow modification of the club facilities and to allow one additional parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 9A and 8Z (part) is located in the Keswick Country i6-16 M 4-11-95 11 Ms.Huckle asked if the proffer addressed buffering. Ms.Hipski said that the proffer states that the site shall be built in general compliance with the submitted site plan (plat) prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman Associates, dated November 22, 1994, and she said the site plan shows a 20-foot land buffer (existing woods) along the front. She also said that the applicant's proffer does address the dedication of a 9' bike path along Rt. 649. Ms.Hipski confirmed that she felt the applicant's proffer addresses the issues of both the buffer and the bike path. Mr. Keeler recommended that the applicant, prior to Board review, see that the 9-foot bike path, the 20-foot buffer, and the 25-foot road dedication are shown on the plan to ensure that they are all exclusive areas. Ms. Huckle said she would reluctantly support the motion, with the clarification that her support was based on the understanding that the 9-foot bike path and the 20-foot buffer were exclusive of each other. Mr. Blue said he, too, would support the motion because he felt the Commission had no other choice. He wished, however, that someone had suggested a deferral until Commissioners Imhoff and Dotson could have been present. The motion for approval passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Huckle asked why recent requests for Craig Builders had been put on a "fast track," with the Board hearing the items the day after they were acted upon by the Commission. Mr. Keeler said he would have to research this question. Referring to the Virginia Land Trust rezoning, Ms. Eleanor Santic suggested the Commission should, in its review, differentiate between a"good" plan and a "correct" plan. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00. V. Wayne ilimberg,w