HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 06 1995 PC Minutes6-6-95
�trw
JUNE 6, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June
6, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Ms.
Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Dotson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of May 23, 1995 were unanimously approved as submitted.
-----------------------------------------
SP-95-06 Robert Couch, Jr. - Petition to permit expansion of an existing Antique Shop
[10.2.2(36)] and outdoor display of merchandise [30.6.3.2(b)] on approximately 1.2
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property,
described as Tax Map 79A1, Section C, Parcels 10 and 11, is located on the north side
of Route 250 approximately 0.5 miles east of the entrance to the Glenmore
development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
,. designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Deferred from the May 23, 1995 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He corrected an error in the staff report, i.e. the
dimensions of the building will be 32' by 52' (not 21' by 52'). Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle asked staff to explain the outdoor display aspect of the use. Mr. Fritz
reported that the Zoning Administrator determined the outdoor storage to be a non-
conforming use "and therefore no action is required by the Architectural Review Board."
He explained the outdoor storage pre -dated the Ordinance and if it is not expanded, it
may continue. (If expansion of outdoor storage and display is sought in the future, ARB
approval will be required at that time.) Ms. Huckle quoted from the report: "While
significant expansion is proposed, approval would allow the County to require
compliance with current regulations." She asked: "Does that mean that we can put in a
condition which says there should be no outdoor storage?" Mr. Davis responded: "It
depends on whether that is a reasonable condition related to this special use. It would
have to be debated on the facts." Mr. Blue said: "Even though it has been in existence
as a non -conforming use, if they are not proposing to expand, we'd be disallowing a
non -conforming use that has been allowed." Mr. Davis explained: "You'd be
conditioning the special use on its relationship to that existing use. It's possible to do
that but it would depend on the reasonableness of these facts --how they interrelate to
,.25 3
lm
6-6-95 2
each other.... With the stipulation that there has to be a reasonable finding as to why
you would be doing that."
The applicant, Mr. Robert Couch, Jr., addressed the Commission. He explained his
plans to improve the existing building. No changes to the existing landscaping are
proposed. He described his plans to improve and clean up the appearance of the
outdoor storage area.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Having heard Mr. Couch's comments, Ms. Imhoff said she felt comfortable with the
outdoor display. She did not feel there was a need for a condition limiting outdoor
display.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-95-06 for Robert
Couch, Jr., be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Approval is for an expansion not to exceed a second story to the existing building,
the floor area of which shall not exceed the floor area of the existing building, and a
storage building not to exceed 1,664 square feet in total floor area.
2. Either the storage building or second floor expansion as described in #1 above shall
comply with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.4 or this approval shall be deemed null
and void.
3. Upon satisfaction of #2 above, the applicant shall have not more than 5 years from
date of approval of this petition to complete construction of all expansion granted
herein.
4. Staff approval of sketch plan drawn to a scale of 1" = 20" including but not limited to:
a. Area for back-up drainfield as approved by the Virginia
Department of Health.
b. Paving of entrance from US Route 250 to parking area and
upgrading entrance to current Virginia Department of Transportation
geometric standards.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
SP-95-12 Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan - Special Use Permit (Section
10.2.2.28 of Zoning Ordinance) for division of land as provided in Section 10.5 to allow
more lots than the total number permitted under Sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2.
6-6-95 3
A%W� Development shall be in accord with proposal plan covering approximately 535 acres,
zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property,
described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8C1, 8D2, 8D3, 8D4, 8J, 8C, 8Z, 21 A, 27, 29, 31,
41, 43, 41 A, 60, 60A, 61 Al, 61, 62, 69, 70, 70A, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 106,
109A and Tax Map 94, Parcel 42A, is the location of the Keswick Country Club
development. The applicant proposes 30 more lots than allowed by -right on Tax Map
80, Parcels 8, 8J, 61, 62, 60 and 109A and a total of 6 more lots than allowed by -right
over the entire property. This property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and
is not in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff believes that such
a proposal should be presented through an analysis for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan as to its overall relationship and effect on the area in
consideration as to the appropriate designation of the area. Absent that analysis, staff
cannot support the special permit request on its own. Should the Board of Supervisors
choose to approve the request, staff recommends appropriate language be included in
the Comprehensive Plan now under review and revisions to address this area."
Ms. Imhoff summarized her understanding of the applicant's proposal: "So when you
add it all up, they would have 6 more small lots than they have a development right for."
Mr. Blue interjected: "A theoretical right." Ms. Imhoff responded: "A theoretical right,
Nftw yes."
Ms. Hipski explained: "They have the potential to create six 21-acre lots. They are
asking that those (six) be reduced in size, making them small lots." She explained
further: "The Zoning Ordinance is very clear that we can allow more lots. The
language is that you can have divisions of land as provided in 10.5 to allow more lots
than the total number permitted under 10.3.1, which is the one that allows small lots by -
right, less than 21-acres, and 10.3.2 which allows 21-acre tracts. Even though they
have this whole plan, we are looking at six lots only where they are asking for
additional development rights. Of those six lots, they are requesting a total of 30
additional development rights. Six of those development rights could have been 21-
acre tracts."
Mr. Blue asked: "Overall, if you consider the theoretical --assuming they could get
approval of a conventional subdivision by -right, including 21-acres--by not doing that
and doing this, how many more lots are they getting than they could get by -right?
Total, not of just those parcels, but of everything included." Ms. Hipski responded:
"The same number." Mr. Blue concluded: "So it's just a re -configuration. If you do it
technically with just those six parcels, then they're asking for more than they are
entitled to by -right. But if you take the whole subdivision, they are asking for no more
now than they would be allowed by -right." Ms. Hipski responded: "That's the
applicant's proposal. "
OR
6-6-95 4
lwftw Mr. Cilimberg explained: "Before 1990, when the first Keswick special permit was
approved, we had an allowance under the prior Ordinance and prior Comp Plan for
rearrangement of lots without adding any more lots than allowed by -right. That doesn't
exist any more. We only have the Rural Preservation Development to do that, and this
could not be proposed as a Rural Preservation Development. So what you end up
getting is our analysis on a core group of parcels within a larger total development
being presented as one plan and when you look at the total it is zero more. If you allow
the 21-acre lots to become small lots, the only way to actually do that under our
current Ordinance is through the RPD."
Im
Mr. Blue concluded: "So in terms of total impact, it's not going to be much more than
they could do by right." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "In terms of number, that's correct.
In terms of the purposes of the Rural Area zoning and why we created a Rural
Preservation Development, it doesn't meet those requirements."
Ms. Hipski confirmed that this proposal would result in 88 lots, in addition to the 35
which presently exist.
Ms. Huckle wondered what was planned for the remaining acreage in the 21-acre
parcels. She asked: "If you're going to do away with 21-acre lots and create 2-acre
lots, ... it's got to still be there in open space somewhere. Where is it?" It was pointed
out to Ms. Huckle that the additional acreage was in open space and was the green
area on the plan. Ms. Hipski said the applicant is proposing to plat that area as open
space.
Ms. Hipski pointed out that the 9-hole golf course parcel (8Z) had been included in the
applicant's proposal, but it had not been part of the analysis. It was noted that parcel
8Z is no longer proposed for use as a golf course. Mr. Cilimberg explained that parcel
8Z had development rights. Some of the lots are still on the "old 9-holes and the rest
are open space."
Mr. Blue commented that "though overall it seems complicated, it is actually fairly
straightforward."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Director of Real Estate
Development for Keswick Corporation. He was accompanied by Tow Ward, Elizabeth
Ratcliff, and Ms. Laura Yergan (co -applicant). He presented a petition of support
which contained the signatures of 11 Keswick property owners. He also distributed
copies of a letter (written by John Clarkson) from Keswick Properties, owner of 16 lots
in Keswick. Mr. Bradshaw did not read the letter but indicated that it expressed support
for the applicant's proposal. Mr. Bradshaw stressed that the applicant feels strongly
that the present proposal is an improved plan for the development. Mr. Bradshaw's
comments and description of the proposal included the following:
A 5_6
6-6-95 5
--This proposal provides for 139 acres of existing golf course, 85 residential
lots, one 2-acre lot for future staff housing, 1 lot for the golf maintenance facility, and 1
lot for the waste treatment facility.
--The plan decreased the amount of acreage to be used for roads from 29.8
acres to 16.6 acres. The plan deletes approximately 5,400 linear feet of roads and all
associated infrastructure costs.
--The plan provides for the platting of a proper golf maintenance facility to be
conveyed to the proper entity, and a lot for the waste water treatment plant to be platted
to a separate entity, Keswick Utility.
--The previous plan provided for no specific open space. This plan provides for
126.8 acres of open space, situated along 164, which provides a very effective entry
corridor buffer barrier. There is also a significant open space system along Rt. 744
and, where available, additional open space is provided along the northeastern
sections of the property.
--This application is simply a matter of legislative discretion on the part of the
Commission's recommendation and as it moves on to the Board of Supervisors.
--The applicant is not asking for any more development rights than can be
theoretically achieved by -right at Keswick.
--The applicant is requesting that the Board use it's legislative discretion to allow
for the development of a superior plan. The Ordinance allows for "flexibility in unique
situations." The applicant truly believes this is a unique situation.
--Section 10.5.2.1 of the Ordinance allows the Board to approve more
development rights on individual parcels of record. The staff report states that the
proposal meets "most" of the criteria for such approval. Mr. Bradshaw addressed
specifically staffs position that this property is not within a developed rural area. He
said the applicant's analysis shows that within one mile of the property 80% of the
parcels are 5 acres or less and include a number of subdivisions which are in the
immediate area. There is probably no more developed rural area anywhere in the
County. Keswick has existed as a development since the 1940's, long before the
comprehensive planning process began in the County. Though the applicant
sometimes gets the feeling from the County that Keswick "is not supposed to be there,"
it is there --it already exists. In 1992/93, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution
which allowed Keswick to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for
a privately owned, public service utility. That process is required by the State
Corporation Commission when 50 units have been achieved, and the applicant is
moving in that direction and hopes to reach that point within the next year. Within the
boundaries of Rt. 616, the C&O Railroad, Rts, 731, 744 and 1-64, there exist 155
parcels of record. Twenty-five of the lots shown on this plan are presently of record in
the Clerk's Office.
--Keswick Corporation has expended significant funds in completion of this
development plan. Club Drive is almost complete and will be ready by the end of the
month.
--The applicant feels this location is "particularly unique" within the County
because of its access to public utilities. "Access to public utilities in the
6-6-95 6
Comprehensive Plan is mentioned as being extremely expensive and should be
efficiently utilized relative to densities that are proposed." The utilities exist and should
be used. "Economies of scale are important."
--The applicant is trying to work within the current zoning designation, at rural
densities. No more density is proposed on the overall boundary of the property. He
pointed out that a development right is being used for both the treatment plant and the
golf maintenance building.
--This plan calls for a maximum of open space, a good buffer system and a
minimum, in comparison to the last plan, of environmental degradation because of the
deletion of 5,400 feet of roadway.
Mr. Bradshaw answered Commission questions:
--"What assurances are there that the open space will not be developed? Are
there any plans to request commercial area in the future?" (Imhoff) ANSWER:
"Bernard Ashley likes to see people in communities. With respect to commercial
development, under the current zoning, it's not going to happen. We have absolutely
no plans to make any applications for commercial development at Keswick. The open
space will be deeded to the Keswick Estate Homeowner's Association."
--"What is meant by'staff housing."' (Huckle) ANSWER: "It is a place for staff
to live. We have students doing college work in hotel management, from time to time,
who come from the UK. It is convenient to have a place for several students or a family
to stay. It is not a dormitory. There could be four students (in the structure) or a family
of four."
--Referring to Mr. Clarkson's letter which stated "The submission has changed to
reflect the revised objectives of the owner." "Can you tell us what those are?" (Huckle)
ANSWER: "To be more environmentally sensitive. To dedicate much more open
space. I felt the (existing) plan, with the golf course in the location shown, destroyed
too many climax -growth forest trees, and also opened up 164. There were a significant
number of lots situated down on the Interstate. I felt that did not protect the entry
corridor sufficiently. I thought it would be appropriate to review the plan, to clean it up,
to decrease the number of linear feet of road construction and to significantly enhance
the open space system."
--Referring to materials attached to the staff report, "When was the central
sewage system enlarged?" (Huckle) "The sewage treatment plant was constructed to
its present capacity, its present makeup, in 1991 and 1992." [NOTE: It was later
clarified that though the plant had been approved in 1985 (under a previous proposal)
to serve 43 lots, plus the club and inn, the original approval was changed in 1991 to
allow the plant to serve a 75 lot development, plus the club and inn. The plant had not
actually been built until 1991, so though there was a change to the approval, there was
no actual change to the plant itself because it had never been built at the 43 lot
capacity. ] Mr. Bradshaw said the plant has a current capacity for 200 equivalent
residential units. He said the applicant does not anticipate there will be any change to
the plant needed. (Ms. Huckle calculated the usage with this proposal would be 171
units, i.e. 86 residential units with this proposal, plus 35 existing residential units, plus
,�3
6-6-95 7
50 allocated for the inn.) Mr. Bradshaw described the Keswick Utility's jurisdictional
area: "Rt. 744 to Rt. 731, the C & O Railway, and to Rt. 616, and back."
--"How many lots can the well system support?" (Huckle) ANSWER: "We have
a sustained yield of 90 gpm, which equals 129,000 gallons/day. " (129,000 divided by
400 gallons per residential unit = 234 residential units)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Robert Couch wondered if any studies have been done on the effects of the
Keswick well system on surrounding private wells. Mr. Bradshaw later addressed this
question. He explained that the geological rock formations in this area, along with the
soil types, determine which areas will have problems with well yield.
Ms. Karen Strickland, a county resident, expressed opposition to the proposal because
she felt the Comprehensive Plan should be strictly adhered to.
Ms. Emily De Cicco, a Keswick property owner, expressed support for the proposal.
She stressed the tremendous contribution to the county made by the applicant's
superior development of this property.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff said that though she was "sympathetic to the design considerations that this
re -configuration of development rights would give Keswick," she was "very concerned
about how we would differentiate Keswick's request from other landowners in other
parts of the county who might want to do similar things." She did not agree that this
area is unique because 80% of the land use is under 5 acres. She noted other similar
areas, such as Earlysville, Key West and Ivy. She said a lot of discussions are
currently taking place, with the Comp Plan review, as to what should and should not be
in the rural area. She said: "To me, right now, Keswick is not a village and it is not a
designated growth area. Staff is in a very tough situation to be able to support it and I
find myself in the same one because I think it does undermine what we have tried to do
in the rural area. Right now, I want to be extremely careful of taking a project out of
sequence of our overall discussion about what we are doing with rural area protection.
I am having a hard time seeing my way to approving this project."
Ms. Vaughan asked staff to comment on the statement that the applicant had not
shown that the lots could support septic drain fields. Ms. Hipski said the applicant had
not provided Health Department approval of septic fields or a soils analysis, either in
1992 or with this request. She noted, however, that the jurisdictional area now
encompasses the entire project. Mr. Blue interjected: "It's fair to say that would be a
demonstration that would prove something legally, and I think the applicant admits that
,_�5y
N.
,%WW the lots could not meet that requirement. But the fact is there is a central sewage
treatment plant there and these lots will not have to be on septic tanks."
Ms. Huckle asked who would be responsible for upgrading the treatment plant once the
development is built out and the developer is no longer involved. What happens if the
plant is inadequate? Mr. Blue answered: "The sewage treatment plant is going to be
adequate for the number of houses that are built or the Health Department will not
allow the houses to be built. It will be Keswick Utility and though we all know a lot of
those plants have had to be taken over by the Service Authority, we don't know if that
is in the cards for this plant. But I do know this is a state -of- the -art plant." Ms. Huckle
again referred to the need for the plant to be "upgraded." [NOTE: Ms. Huckle
mistakenly thought the plant had been built with a capacity for 43 units in 1986.] Mr.
Bradshaw again explained that the plant had been built to it's existing state-of-the-art
quality in 1991, thus there has been no need for it to be "upgraded." The plant did not
exist at all until 1991. Mr. Bradshaw also explained that many agencies are involved in
the regulation of the sewage treatment facility --State Corporation Commission, Health
Department, Department of Environmental Quality. Ms. Huckle asked: "Who's going to
pay for it?" Mr. Bradshaw responded: "The customers --the same way the sewage
treatment system in Albemarle County is paid for." Mr. Bradshaw again confirmed the
capacity of the existing plant is the equivalent of 200 residences, and that has been its
capacity since it was originally built.
Mr. Jenkins said he felt the applicant had made an excellent case and he thought the
Board would probably approve the request. However, he said he had reservations
about voting against the staffs recommendation, not adhering to the Comprehensive
Plan, and "bending our own rules, and for those reasons he had doubts about
supporting the request.
Mr. Nitchmann said he understood staffs recommendations, given the way the Comp
Plan is written,and "whether the policy is correct is for another discussion at some
other time." He said he had to look at this request with a "common sense attitude." He
explained: "Overall it makes good planning sense to do this. They have the facilities
there. They are going to add 100+ acres to the open space which wasn't there before.
I think we are getting a lot for our money here. I believe if the staff could have found a
way to recommend approval of this, without going against the letter of the law, they
would have probably done so. In regard to taking something out of sequence with the
Comprehensive Plan and looking at it, I think the Comprehensive Plan is just that --it's a
plan. It was put in place at a specific point in time with the best information we had at
the time. Plans are made to be changed periodically.... In regard to asking what kind
of precedent we may be setting here for future property owners, I think that is one of
our jobs, to look at those as they come up. If we were always to follow the
Comprehensive Plan by the book then we wouldn't need a Planning Commission. It is
one our responsibilities to handle each situation in the future as it comes up and see if
it makes good sense at that time. From my perspective I think this is a win situation for
.26O
6-6-95
N
the County, for Keswick, and for future residents. I could support approval of this
request."
Mr. Blue said he agreed with many of Mr. Nitchmann's comments. He said he had
been surprised by staffs conclusion, though he agreed that they probably had to make
the recommendation they did because this is, as described by a member of the public,
"a Catch-22 situation." He did not think approval would set a precedent because
"Keswick is a situation by itself." He explained: "There are lots of other subdivisions in
the County with this kind of density. Keswick is not a village by designation but is a de
facto village and has been for as long as I have been in this County. It has been a
village by almost any definition except the legal definition of our land use plan. I could
argue against each of the unfavorable items listed by staff, but, essentially, I agree with
Mr. Nitchmann. It is an unusual situation. Staff had to come up with this
recommendation but I think we have the responsibility and the authority to consider this
an unusual situation. It is a de facto village and this plan presented tonight is probably
better for the whole community. I think I will support it for that reason, but my vote is
not intended to be either a black mark against our Comprehensive Plan or staffs work
on this request. I just think this is something we are entitled to, and responsible to,
consider."
Ms. Huckle wondered about the urgency of doing this now instead of with the regular
AW Comp Plan review. Mr. Blue said there was probably no urgency except from the
applicant's standpoint. Mr. Blue questioned whether "waiting in line for a Comp Plan
review" would make any difference because the Comp Plan will probably continue to
designate it as a rural area, as it is now. He was not aware of any "move afoot to
change this to a village."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-12 be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the five conditions presented in the staff report.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Imhoff said she felt Mr. Jenkins had "hit it on the head," i.e. "that it is the Board's
position to make the break from the Comprehensive Plan." She felt the role of the
Planning Commission is to "stand by the Comprehensive Plan."
Ms. Huckle said she would not support the motion because she felt the request should
be included with the full Comp Plan review which is currently taking place.
Mr. Nitchmann said he feels it is part of the Commission's responsibility to send forth to
the Board it's feelings on a particular issue. "We can't always put a stake in the ground
all the time and say we live or die by the Plan. If we do that, I would hate to see what
6-6-95 10
would occur within this community or within this society, because we can't predict the
future and what might require us to make different decisions than we made yesterday.
For that reason alone, I think this warrants us sending this forth to the Board of
Supervisors."
Ms. Imhoff commented following Mr. Nitchmann: "I think it is incredibly important to be
consistent in land use decisions and we have this Comprehensive Plan process to
rethink what we are doing in the rural areas. For me, I understand the need for
flexibility and being able to move into the future, but I think there is great value in
consistently following your planning process."
Mr. Nitchmann said that though he might agree with Ms. Imhoff in other instances, in
this particular case, even if it were to be deferred, "it's not going to change." "We
would come out of it with the same decision that we are going to tonight. If it was a
major change --saying we want to change this from a rural area to a village, I would (not
be in favor of that), but we've already agreed, in the work sessions we've had, that
we're not looking at doing anything in that part of the county. We want to maintain it's
rural nature and I think this does a good job and adds 125 deeded acres into the open
space."
Ms. Huckle said: "You might be right that we would come to the same conclusion as
*41W your motion, but at least we would have gone through the process, which is what we're
supposed to do."
The motion for approval failed to pass (2:4), with Commissioners Nitchmann and Blue
voting in favor, and Commissioners, Imhoff, Huckle, Vaughan and Jenkins voting
against.
The Chairman called for an alternative motion.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that SP-95-12 for Keswick
Corporation & Laura Yergan be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial on
the grounds that it is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann commented: "If the reason for denying this is because it is out of
sequence with the Comprehensive Plan...." (Ms. Imhoff interrupted, saying "That is not
the reason.") Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Then what is the reason?"
Ms. Imhoff explained: "It is not the sequence which has worried me. It is the fact that,
as staff pointed out, it does not meet the planned residential criteria nor is it a
designated village, nor is it any type of designated growth area. We are creating,
think, with this process, something which is betwixt and between. If we are going to do
26 -'�-
6-6-95 11
that in these areas, then I think we should have a fair process which allows other
landowners to benefit from the same sort of 'it's not really a village, it's not really the
rural area.' Right now I think it does not fit with what we allow in our rural areas. If we
think we want this type of development or this type of arrangement, then I think, in
fairness, we should address it county -wide, not just as a special case situation."
Mr. Blue concluded the discussion: "These comments will be in our minutes and the
Board of Supervisors will have the chance to reverse our decision and I hope they will."
The motion for denial passed (4:2) with Commissioners Huckle, Imhoff, Vaughan and
Jenkins voting for denial and Commissioners Nitchmann and Blue voting against.
SP-95-13 Ednam Associates Limited Partnership - Petition to amend an existing
special use permit to allow use of the Ednam Manor House for office use. Property,
described as Tax Map 60, parcel 28A1, is the Ednam Manor House. This site is zoned
PRD, Planned Residential Development and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. This site is recommended for low density residential in Neighborhood 6.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one
condition.
on
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Quayle and Mr. Caleb Stowe. Mr. Stowe
gave a lengthy history of the structure. Mr. Stowe asked for a change to staffs
suggested condition. He asked that only a 5-foot setback be required between the
road right-of-way and the parking area. He was not opposed to a 10-foot setback
between the parking area and the adjacent residential properties.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Edward McClanahan, Chairman of the Ednam Homeowners' Long Range Planning
Committee, expressed support for the proposal.
Ms. Huckle asked if the pool was accessible to the entire neighborhood, or just to the
manor house. Mr. Stowe said there is a current proposal to build a community pool
elsewhere in the neighborhood, but in the meantime, Mr. Quayle has agreed to allow
the community to use the manor house pool for 1995 and 1996.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked how staff felt about Mr. Stowe's requested change in the setback. Mr.
Lilley said he didn't think it was of concern to staff, but 10-foot is the norm.
on
6-6-95 12
*low MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-13 for Ednam Associates Limited Partnership
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
condition:
1. Prior to the establishment of office uses in the Manor House, a site plan amendment
shall be approved by the County. The site plan shall provide for 10' setbacks between
the parking area and adjoining properties and a minimum of 5' setback between the
parking area and the roads and landscape screening within the setback area.
[NOTE: Ms. Imhoff original motion suggested amending the condition to require a 5'
foot setback between both the parking area and the road, and between the parking
area and the residences. Ms. Huckle objected to that change and Ms. Imhoff amended
her motion as stated above.]
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
SP-95-14 John Evans - Petition to allow a home occupation Class B (for a small-scale
dressmaking shop in an accessory building) [10.2.2(31)] on five acres zoned RA, Rural
1%W Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 100, Parcel 35A is located on the east side of
Rt. 631 approximately 0.85 miles south of Rt. 708 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one
condition.
The applicant, Ms. Beth Evans, was present and offered to answer Commission
questions. Mr. Nitchmann asked what the requirements are "for roadside drainage
control " (as recommended by VDOT). Ms. Evans explained that a pipe will be required
under the driveway.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that SP-95-14 for John Evans
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
condition:
1. The entrance onto Route 631 shall comply with Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) minimum sight distance requirements for a private entrance
(250') and with VDOT requirements for roadside drainage control.
The motion passed unanimously.
6-6-95
13
SP-95-15 C.W. Hurt Contractors, Inc. - Petition to allow a preschool/day care on
5.391 acres zoned R-6 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 91
and 93A1, is located on the west side of the Berkmar Drive/Woodbrook Drive
intersection in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Medium
Density Residential.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He offered to answer Commission
questions. He was accompanied by Ms. Lindsey Swabb, the operator of the facility.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-15 for C.W. Hurt Contractors, Inc. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare
as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to
*fto the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and
to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation
within three(3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
2. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire
Official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such inspection
shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
3. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to
preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
4. Use is limited to a maximum of 70 students.
5. Access shall be limited to the north side of the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and
Berkmar Drive.
The motion passed unanimously.
In
M
6-6-95 14
ZMA-95-06 Forest Lakes Associates - Petition to rezone 2.2 acres from R-1
Residential to R-15, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 46134, parcel 6, is
located on the east side of Worth Crossing approximately 800 feet north of Timberwood
Blvd. in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density
Residential in the Community of Hollymead.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance
of the applicant's proffer.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He offered to answer
Commission questions. He also said he would be glad to proffer the plan which was on
display. The plan was for 26 townhouse units which he pointed out is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for high density in this area. He
described the intent is for the units to be "2-story, 2-bedroom, 2-bath, townhouses, of
about 1,200 to 1,400 finished square feet." He anticipated the "exterior would be
relatively consistent", i.e. they will look "relatively the same." Though it is not certain
whether these will be for -sale or for -rent units, if they are sold it is anticipated they will
be in the $80,000 to $100,000 price range.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. John MacDonald, Chairman of the Forest Lakes Transportation Committee, and
Ms. Jan Meriweather, a resident of Forest Lakes' Gateway neighborhood, addressed
the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal. Their reasons for
opposition were as follows:
--The site is one which cannot be hidden from the street.
--R-15 is too high a density for the site. It should not be more than R-6.
--The new road (an extension of Worth Crossing), which goes by MacDonalds,
the new UVA Medical Center, and two office buildings, comes through a residential
neighborhood. This proposal will further increase traffic on Worth Crossing, which will
be getting even more traffic from Proffit Road when MacDonald's opens. Gateway
Village was not meant to handle this much traffic.
--There are many school -age children in the Gateway neighborhood. The
Education Department is not yet aware of the new road. Increased traffic will make
this a "high hazard area" and will endanger 20-30 school children who catch the school
bus on this street.
Mr. Runkle expressed some concern about the apparent lack of awareness among the
residents of Forest Lakes that this property is a part of Forest Lakes, as it always has
been. He said the developer has always attempted to keep the homeowner's aware of
plans. He also said that Worth Crossing has always been planned for connection to Rt.
29. He explained some of the development history of Gateway Village and Worth
Crossing.
;�64
6-6-95 15
Ms. Huckle asked about parking provisions for the townhouses. Mr. Runkle said each
unit would have two parking spaces (52 parking spaces total).
Ms. Huckle asked where guests would park. Mr. Runkle said he assumed the parking
provisions "anticipate normal usage plus visitors." He indicated excess parking (such
as for a special event) could be accommodated on the shoulders of Worth Crossing.
Mr. Runkle pointed out that some of the issues raised by the public, such as
landscaping, etc., would be addressed at the time of site plan review.
Ms. Huckle suggested that some variety in the design might make the project more
acceptable to the adjoining neighborhoods.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Runkle to clarify whether these will be townhouses or
apartments. Mr. Runkle responded: "This plan is not proffered. The request is to zone
it R-15, which could theoretically accommodate stacked unit apartments. This plan is
for 26, side -by -side townhouse units. As I said earlier, I am willing to proffer that." He
said the units could be either sold or rented.
There being no further public or applicant comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
*,„ Ms. Imhoff said this request would have benefitted from having more information about
design details and landscaping. She felt this type of development is more palatable if it
can be shown that it is not just strip development. She recalled that she had opposed
the UVA Medical Center request because of the loss of residential units. She
concluded: "I don't know how I could vote against this request to add at least 26 units
back in after we had an enormous fight about how we were going to have to try to put
some affordable housing and some moderate units into some of our community areas.
think some of the concerns expressed by the residents --how it looks, how it fits in,
traffic concerns --are legitimate, but I cannot see a reason to deny this. And since the
applicant has proffered the plan, that allays some of my concerns by at least limiting it
to the 26 units. I think it might be helpful before this goes before the Board to have
more discussion about the landscaping. But I support it."
It was noted that the plan was not proffered, but that the applicant had expressed a
willingness to proffer it.
Ms. Huckle hoped that the units could be set back from the road, or at least staggered
somewhat, "so they are not all lined up like soldiers." Mr. Runkle said the buildings
will be staggered.
Mr. Nitchmann said he would feel more comfortable if a proffer was offered saying
these will be side -by -side townhouses and not apartments. He felt there is a difference
•- in a townhouse and an apartment.
cm
6-6-95
W
Mr. Blue noted that there is time for the applicant to offer a proffer before the Board
hearing.
Mr. Jenkins was sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns.
Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that the road will be signed so as to indicate the
presence of children and also that the bus stop will be changed to a better location.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-95-06 for Forest Lakes Associates be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with the understanding that the
project will be townhouseunits with a maximum of 26 units, with some variability in
building style and setback.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Davis to comment on the acceptability of the wording of the motion.
Mr. Davis replied: "That's fine. The applicant has offered to proffer the plan. The only
legal requirement being that those proffers be reduced to writing prior to the Board's
public hearing. So as long as your recommendation is clear, the applicant can react to
that and the Board can consider whatever is before them at the time."
Ms. Vaughan expressed concern about the safety issue raised by the public and also
about the potential lack of adequate parking, which can also create safety hazards.
Ms. Imhoff said there are other neighborhoods in the urban area which have these
same concerns. She pointed out that VDOT has said the road is tolerable.
Ms. Huckle wondered if this property would be better suited for commercial
development. She asked Mr. Runkle if there was any other property in Forest Lakes
where this type of development could be placed. (Mr. Runkle's response was inaudible
on the tape.)
Ms. Imhoff felt this was one of those transitional areas which has been discussed
recently. She felt residential would work in this instance. She also pointed out that 26
units is not a large development.
Mr. Nitchmann.felt it would have been better for the adjoining neighborhoods if this strip
were developed as commercial office, which he thought would have created a safer
situation. He said: "This is how you take a safety issue and blow it out of proportion
because you want to follow the Comprehensive Plan to the letter. Now we are trapped
26 �,
11*A.
l
6-6-95 17
here. We are going to follow the Comprehensive Plan because it says we should do
this. I don't think I can support this request."
The previously stated motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Huckle and
Nitchmann casting the dissenting votes.
Ms. Huckle said she felt this property was better suited for commercial development
and that residential development should be "tucked away in a more private area."
Mr. Nitchmann said he felt the property was better suited for a transitional usage than
for residential because of the safety issues related to the children.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the transitional zone which is currently being discussed
does include residential usage as well as commercial office. He also noted that some
commercial office uses generate more traffic than residential usage. Regarding the
concerns about the location of the school bus stop, Mr. Cilimberg said he would have
staff bring that matter to the attention of the Education Department's Bus
Transportation Office.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Jenkins asked about the status of the Farmer's Market. Ms. Imhoff reported that
both the Commercial Stables and Farmer's Market uses would be discussed at the
June 7th Board meeting.
There was a brief discussion about the possibility of a Resolution of Intent to address
additional standards or supplementary regulations for airstrips and heliports,
particularly distance from main airport and from each other, maximum number allowed,
and frequency of use. Staff was to compose the appropriate language for a Resolution
of Intent and present it to the Commission in the near future.
Mr. Davis recalled that there has been a question raised as to whether there is a need
for private airstrips and heliports to be addressed in the Ordinance. He felt that was
the fundamental question which should first be addressed.
Ms. Huckle read a letter from some residents of Branchlands (Mr. and Mrs. Flood)
which described recent flooding problems with the Branchlands Channel. Staff said the
letter has been forwarded to the Engineering Department.
16 1
6-6-95
18
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis to explain "what constitutes vesting" for a special permit.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it is the Zoning Administrator who makes the final
determination on a vesting question. Mr. Davis said it requires a "case -by -case
analysis" in each case because the Ordinance is not clearly drafted on that issue.
Ms. Imhoff expressed the hope that there would be another work session on the Land
Use portion of the Comp Plan. She said she still had concerns about changing to only
two types of residential zoning.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
W
Im
CR
U. J
V. Wayn Cilim erg, '-� tary
,;2 FO