HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 07 1995 PC Minuteson
11-7-95
NOVEMBER 7, 1995
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 7, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica
Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant
County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of the October 17th work session, and the October 24th meeting were
unanimously approved as amended.
ZMA-95-17 Wendell Wood - Petition to amend the proffers of ZMA-93-06 to allow
establishment of outdoor storage and display of autos on 11.3 acres (corrected by staff
to 7.9 acres), zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. [30.6.3.2b] Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcels 43 and 43A is located
on the west side of Route 29 near Timberwood Blvd in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
This is the location of the Maupin Store. This site is recommended for Regional Service
in the Community of Hollymead. Deferred from the October 24th Planning Commission
Meeting.
and
SP-95-31 Wendell Wood - Petition to establish outdoor storage and display of autos on
11.3 acres, (corrected by staff to 7.9 acres) zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. [30.6.3.2b] Property, described as Tax Map 32,
parcels 43 and 43A is located on the west side of Route 29 near Timberwood Blvd in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is the location of the Maupin Store. This site is
recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. Deferred from the
October 24th Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He said proffer number 1 has been clarified so that
auto sales will not be allowed on the entire property, but only on that portion outlined
around the existing building on the plan. [NOTE: Mr. Fritz reported the staff report had
incorrectly stated the acreage to be 11.3 acres. The acreage should have been stated
as 7.9 acres.] Mr. Fritz said the remaining proffers have also been clarified, and are
consistent with the original proffers. Mr. Fritz concluded: "I believe the applicant has
addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission."
11-7-95 2
*wr
The applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, addressed the Commission. Regarding the removal
of the existing underground gas tanks, he said the information he has been able to
gather indicates that if the existing operation ceases, the tanks will have to be removed
within either 60 days or 6 months. He was given two different time frames and was
uncertain which was correct.
Ms. Huckle quoted the following from the proffer: "This area outlined in yellow may be
used as a convenience grocery store and gas sales." She asked if the applicant
planned to continue to offer gas sales. Mr. Wood replied: "No. If approved as a car
dealership, it will not be used as a convenience store or a (gas station). The gas
pumps will have to be taken out since the gas station will cease and the in -ground tanks
will have to be removed within either 60 days or 6 months. The convenience store and
gas station will cease to operate."
Ms. Imhoff thought the proffers did not reflect Mr. Wood's explanation. She said the
proffers indicate that both auto sales and convenience store would be allowed. Mr.
Fritz explained: "The convenience store and gas station is an existing use on the
property and we would recommend that you leave that in. That is the only by -right use
that would be available on this property in the event the special permit fails or is
abandoned, for whatever reason. That is a carryover from the original rezoning." Mr.
Wood confirmed Mr. Fritz's statements, saying: "If it is not rezoned, then it will have to
be used for the existing use, the best we can." Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the way the
proffer is worded, even if the rezoning is approved, the convenience store and gasoline
sales use would still be allowed. Mr. Fritz said: "You could do that (i.e. restrict the
usage) as a condition of approval of the special use permit if warranted. And that is
what the ARB has recommended as part of their conditions for approval of outdoor
storage." Mr. Wood said that was acceptable. Mr. Cilimberg added: "Also, if the
applicant did not exercise this special use permit, then it is the existing use that
remains, and this allows for that to continue. If you took that away, you would actually
have to take that use out of the ground, basically, and never exercise the special use
permit."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a
statement of opposition to the proposed rezoning and special permit. That statement is
made a part of this record as Attachment A.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle read the following statement: "I think we can agree that the problems with
traffic flow on Rt. 29 are due to too many random entrances and no parallel roads to
serve local businesses. We can also agree that the only reason that this parcel was
11-7-95 3
rezoned from Rural Areas to Highway Commercial was that the trailer sales lot was to
support and service the adjoining trailer park. The trailer park was approved only
because it was believed to provide affordable housing. It is our job as Commissioners
to learn from past mistakes and avoid making the same mistakes again and again with
Rt. 29. However, staff reminds us that the 1992 Comprehensive Plan Amendment calls
for an overall plan to be approved before development of this commercial area. If we
approve this use with no parallel roads, no unified development plan, and no
contiguous access between parcels, we will be gutting our Comprehensive Plan. If this
one -acre use is approved, the applicant could seek approval for many more small
developments with multiple access to 29. It also proves that we have learned nothing
about the usefulness of Rt 29 as an arterial road because this is how it has developed
in the past --one small parcel at a time to lead to this bottleneck."
Ms. Imhoff said that though she appreciated Mr. Lombardo's efforts to "tighten up the
proffer," her concerns remain as stated at the previous meeting. She said she
supported staffs recommendation for denial.
Mr. Blue repeated his comments from the previous meeting, i.e. "this particular plan to
develop that small parcel would be an improvement and wouldn't require a large capital
investment, and sort of answered your concern about the unified development --in other
words, this may be a transitional or a temporary use."
on
Mr. Dotson said he had not been a part of the previous actions on this property and "it
may be that the developer is pulling a fast one here." He said: "The Plan does say
Commercial, the zoning is Highway Commercial. There are protections in here for not
having excessive curb cuts in the overall development. I think the key is it is a very
small piece, re -using an existing building. It seems to me we could make it very clear
this is not to set a precedent for piecemeal development, that this one small piece is
unique because of that building and because of the history." He concluded he was still
undecided as to how he would vote on the request.
Mr. Nitchmann said he agreed with Mr. Dotson. He said he might feel differently if this
were a vacant piece of land. He pointed out that the proposed use would reduce the
amount of pavement which would be necessary for a mobile home sales use, "it
consolidates everything in a more concise manner," and it is at the end of the property.
He thought the contiguous acreage surrounding the site would still lend itself to sound
development in the future. He said he did not agree with staffs recommendation. In
the event of favorable action on the request, he thought the language of proffer No. 1
needed to be clarified.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-95-17 for Wendell Wood be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
M
11-7-95 4
The motion passed (4:3) with Commissioners Jenkins, Huckle, Imhoff and Vaughan
voting for the motion and Commissioners Blue, Dotson and Nitchmann voting against.
Mr. Blue said the action taken on the ZMA rendered the special permit request moot,
thus no action was required. Mr. Kamptner agreed saying that denial of the special
permit was implied by the action on ZMA-95-17. Though Mr. Cilimberg reminded the
Commission that it has historically taken action in these situations, no action was taken.
ZMA-95-13 University Real Estate Foundation - Petition to rezone 5 acres from R-1,
Residential to R-10 Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 60, parcel 45, is
located on the north side of Ivy Road on the access road to University Village in the
Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential
(10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 7. Deferred from the October 24,
1995 Planning Commission meeting.
and
SP-95-27 University Real Estate Foundation - Petition to establish a professional
office on 5.0 acres zoned R-10 [17.2.2(11)]. Property, described as Tax Map 60, parcel
45, is located on the north side of Ivy Road on the access road to University Village in
i0w the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density
Residential 910.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 7. Deferred from the
October 24, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
M
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He said staff is comfortable with the proffers which
the applicant has submitted and the recommended conditions of approval for the
special permit remain as originally proposed.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blain. He said the applicant had met with
the University Village Owner's Association and now understands better the concerns of
the residents. Concerns of the residents were as follows:
--Ivy Gardens' residents' use of Crestwood Drive -- This is an existing situation
over which the applicant has no control.
--Maintenance of the road -- The applicant has offered to contribute a pro rata
share of the maintenance for the portion of Crestwood Drive which will be used by the
applicant.
--North Grounds connector road being used as a "cut -through"-- The applicant
has offered, "at such time as the Foundation has an actual access to the North
Grounds, (the applicant) will restrict other users from using the road so that it does not
become a cut -through."
/.�;Z
11-7-95
Mr. Blain concluded: "So with the proffers that restrict the density, with our agreements
with the residents, we feel we have addressed the issues that have come up through
the public hearing."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Opal David, representing the University Village Owner's Association, addressed the
Commission. She said that though a good faith effort has been made to reach an
agreement with the applicant, there are still details which are yet to be finalized. She
said the most important issue is the use of the North Grounds connector, and the
applicant has agreed (assuming the Darden connector is possible) to "restrict access to
their property from Crestwood Drive," and also has said "they will not extend access
through their property for the benefit of other properties on the North Grounds or
beyond." However, there is no indication yet as to how these restrictions will be
accomplished. She said the University Village residents have no objection to the
rezoning, but she hoped the special permit request would be denied until all details
have been worked out.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he thought the concerns of the University Village residents could be
*AW addressed through conditions on the special permit. He pointed out, however, that the
Commission could not address issues connected with the road maintenance
agreement.
M
Referring to the fact that the Owner's Association had received a letter from the
applicant at 5:00 today, Mr. Jenkins said he was bothered by "5:00 letters." He said
such last-minute approaches did not influence him greatly and he preferred to have
adequate time to evaluate a request. He thought a deferral would be in order to let the
applicant and the residents work things out.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that there is still time for further negotiation prior to the Board
hearing on November 15th. She thought the Commission should take action on the
request and move it forward.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Kamptner confirmed that proffers 2, 3 and 4
had been deleted at the recommendation of the County Attorney's office.
To address the concern about through -traffic, Mr. Fritz suggested the addition of the
following condition to the special permit: At such time as alternative access is provided,
access to Crestwood Drive shall be limited to emergency access only.
i3�
11-7-95 6
Mr. Blue asked if Mr. Anderson wished to comment on the request. Mr. Anderson
replied: "Mr. Chairman, I think this is one I would like to not make any comment on and
I'd like the minutes to recognize that."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-95-13 for University Real Estate Foundation
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-27 for University Real Estate Foundation
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements of Section 21.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Office space limited to the existing residence and amendments to the building not to
result in a building larger than 3,500 square feet gross floor area.
3. Use shall not commence until site plan approval has been obtained.
1�ww 4. At such time as alternative access is provided, access to Crestwood Drive shall be
limited to emergency access only.
EM
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Jenkins
casting the dissenting vote.
ZMA-95-14 Dennis Rooker/Ivy Creek, Inc., et all - Petition to rezone 215.0 acres from
PRD, Planned Residential Development to RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax Map 59A1, parcels 1-33 and B (open space). This site is the location of the Ivy
Creek Subdivision and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is
not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Deferred from the October 24,
1995, Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to the
acceptance of the applicant's proffers as follows:
(1) Within 45 days of the rezoning of the property, the owners will submit to the County
of Albemarle for approval a revised plat of the property with a total number of lots not
to exceed 14.
/3 9
11-7-95 7
(2) Prior to any further development of the property the property shall be re -subdivided
in accord with an approved plat consisting of not more than 14 lots.
(Mr. Keeler said the record should show the language "further development of the
property" is intended to mean vacant lots. He explained: "There are some lots here
that have houses and I wouldn't want somebody's building permit for a deck to be held
up by this language.")
(3) Access limited to Broomley Road only and no access onto Brook Road. This
condition shall prohibit the connection of a private driveway from the Broomley Farm
property to the road serving the property.
Ms. Vaughan asked Mr. Keeler to clarify the letter received by the Commission,
particularly the reference to the "second proffer condition" in the fourth paragraph.
[NOTE: The letter referred to by Ms. Vaughan was from the Farmington Owner's
Association which is made a part of these minutes as Attachment B.] She asked if the
reference was to the letter received by the Commission. Mr. Keeler responded: "It
does, I believe, refer to the language here. The first sentence in the third proffer limits
the access from the Ivy Creek property to Broomley Road only and prohibits access
from the Ivy Creek property onto Brook Road. The second sentence is the one which
talks to Broomley Farm, which is south of the Ivy Creek property, and that is the one
that said this condition shall not prohibit the connection of the private driveway from the
Broomley Farm property onto the road serving the property." (Mr. Fred Payne, clarified
this question later in the meeting.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dennis Rooker. His comments included the
following:
--The property was downzoned in 1980 from R-1, with a permitted 184 lots, to
the present PRD which permits 33 lots. This is a further request for a downzoning from
a PRD with 33 lots to an RA with a maximum of 14 lots.
--The applicant is interested in preserving the rural character of the property.
The proposed rezoning would bring the property into compliance and consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan, which designates this property as rural and would also make
the zoning consistent with that of surrounding parcels.
--The rezoning would ultimately reduce traffic in surrounding neighborhoods.
-- The surrounding properties, including Farmington and Flordon, will benefit
from the preservation of the rural character of the property.
-- One of the applicants recently vacated a 23-lot subdivision on an adjoining
parcel in a further effort to preserve the rural character of this property.
-- The proffer "matches the existing limitation on access that applies to the PRD."
Mr. Rooker explained the history of the access issue. He said: "At the time the PRD
was being considered by the Board of Supervisors back in 1980, the Farmington
/�o
11-7-95 8
'+iftr
Property Owner's Association, through numerous representatives, requested that the
Board of Supervisors take away the accesses that had been granted by Farmington,
Inc. in negotiation with the Property Owner's Association in 1978. That is how the
condition got on the PRD in 1980, which limits access to Broomley and which basically
takes away the three limited accesses that he acquired from Farmington in 1978. This
downzoning would eliminate the access limitation condition that is on the existing PRD
and in order to preserve that condition, because of the objections that have been made
by various people in the Farmington Property Owner's Association, we have proffered
to allow the existing condition to remain on the property, the effect of which is to take
away the limited accesses.... What we are offering to do is to preserve the limitations
that exist today on the PRD with respect to access. If we did not proffer that, if they
were not a condition of this downzoning, those limited access rights would, in effect,
arise again."
Mr. Rooker concluded: "We think this is a good plan; it is consistent with the kinds of
things the County is trying to achieve in preserving it's rural property and we ask for
your support."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Fred Payne addressed the Commission. He addressed the question asked earlier
in the meeting by Ms. Vaughan. He explained: "I understand why you are confused.
This is a reference to the second proffer. The reason for that is we didn't have these
proffers in hand. We were told they were coming and what I thought was going to
happen is that the proffers you see as 1 and 2 were going to be 1A and 1 B, and the
one you see as number 3 was going to be the second. So what you see referred to in
this letter as the second proffer is actually number 3 on the proffers." The second issue
addressed by Mr. Payne was the location of the driveway. Following Mr. Payne's
directions, Mr. Blue pointed out the location of the driveway on the plan which was
displayed before the Commission. He said the driveway forms, "more or less, a direct
connection between Ivy Creek Drive and Brook Road." He said the driveway has been
newly constructed. The third issue addressed by Mr. Payne he described as follows:
"The condition that is proffered here, this number 3 condition, Mr. Rooker described as
a carryover. Yes, it is a carryover (because) it was adopted at the request of the
applicant in 1994 as ZMA 94-10. The problem with that is the notification in that zoning
action was defective and most of my clients, including, specifically, Mr. Strickler, were
entitled to notice and did not get notice. We have not pushed this to a major degree
because we are talking about the same issues tonight. The problem is that the second
sentence of this proffer was added in 1994. That's not what the original condition of the
PRD was in 1980. The original condition was 'no access to Brook Road, period.' That's
the problem. Mr. Strickler will get into it, but I wanted to point out to you that the reason
there wasn't any opposition to ZMA-94-10 is because the people that opposed it did not
know about it. This didn't come to their attention until late last month. You can tell this
11-7-95 9
is all on a very shortened time frame. I was first called about this on the 20th of
October and everything was so quickly happening that the Farmington Owner's Board
hadn't even had time to authorize engaging me. It has all happened in the last week, so
you can see the problem we have. As Mr. Strickler will tell you, we are coming here
with a qualified endorsement of this application, and, if we can have some appropriate
legislative history, and we're asking you tonight and the Board on the 15th to make that
legislative history, if we can get that, we're happy with this application. There will still be
some problems, but we think we can live with it. If we can't, then we are not going to be
able to support it."
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Payne to explain what he meant by legislative history. Mr. Payne
responded: "We don't want revision, what we want is a clear statement of what this
third (proffer) is intended to mean." Mr. Payne said the three issues which the
Farmington Owner's Association wants clarified are listed on page 2 of the letter
handed to the Commission. [Listed later in this record and also in Attachment B.] Mr.
Payne said further: "You cannot tell an applicant what a proffer is going to be, but you
do have the authority --you and the Board --have the authority to give guidance if there is
ever any issue about how to interpret what your action was. Your record is clearly the
best source of that and what we're asking you to do is to build that record."
Mr. Blue asked if there have been any negotiations between the applicant and the
Farmington Association. Mr. Payne said a discussion had taken place on October 26th
between Mr. Strickler and Mr. Harvey and it was agreed Mr. Payne should meet with
Mr. Rooker. He talked to Mr. Rooker on Tuesday afternoon, October 31st, but had been
unable to resolve the issues. The letter received by the Commission had been
composed immediately following his meeting with Mr. Rooker and had been mailed
Friday, November 3rd. He concluded: "We're willing to talk; they were not willing to talk
with us." ... We would be happy to keep trying. We just haven't had time."
Mr. Dick Strickler, a member of the Board of Directors of the Farmington Property
Owner's Association addressed the Commission. He said the issue of concern to the
Farmington property owners is the prohibition of access form the Ivy Creek property
onto Brook Road. He read the letter sent to the Commission, which stated the
Association's position, and is referred to previously in these minutes. [See Attachment
B.] The Association urged the Commission and the Board to make clear, for the record,
that "their intent, in permitting the construction of the new road mentioned in the (third)
proffered condition, and in ZMA 94-10, is, and always has been: (1) to permit only a
private driveway for Broomley Farm; (2) that this driveway may not be used for
subdivision purposes for so long as it physically connects the Ivy Creek property to
Brook Road; and (3) that this driveway may not be used as a connection between
Brook Road and the Ivy Creek property, or any property other than the dominant
portions of Broomley Farm, but must be closed off from the public by a system of gates
such as the one the developer already proposes to install."
11-7-95 10
1%W Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Strickler to clarify the location of the gates requested by the
Association. He said a gate is requested at the "southerly" end of the driveway to
prevent access to the Farmington roads, and it is also requested that the exsiting gate
which leads onto Brook Road be maintained.
Mr. Blue expressed concern about forcing the applicant to install a gate. He explained:
"It seems to me if they have no legal access to it, there is no more reason for the public
to use that than there is to come off Rt. 250 and drive through Farmington now. ... The
gate you're talking about now is to prevent an illegal access." Mr. Strickler responded:
"Yes sir.
Mr. Blue noted the Farmington letter indicated the Owner's Association was willing to
bear the burden of enforcement. Mr. Strickler said: "We are, provided we don't have
an impossible task, which we frankly feel gates which we have already been told by the
developer he is going to put in for his own privacy, which we think are a great idea,
should be made part of the record of any approval that might be given here."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Owner's Association could put it's own gate on Brook Road.
Mr. Strickler said: "We do not have the right to close off an easement which is properly
part of Broomley Farm. Broomley Farm has the right to come in and out that east -west
road that dead ends at Brook Road by virtue of their being a Farmington deeded
11*W property. They have the right to use the private roads of Farmington. They do not,
however, have the right to extend the use to properties that are not part of Farmington,
such as are in Ivy Creek."
Ms. Mary Bentley, a Farmington resident, addressed the Commission. She pointed out
that a gate on Brook Road would cut off some of the residents living on Brook Hill in
Farmington. She said there would be objections to such a gate.
Mr. Rooker was allowed to respond to public comments. He pointed out that Broomley
Farm has always had access both onto Broomley Road and onto Brook Road. He
presented a map showing the driveway system which had existed prior to the
construction of the new driveway. He said the owner of Broomley had decided last
year he wanted a new driveway that would connect his property to Broomley Road, and
the purpose had been to create a more aesthetic entrance to his property and at the
same time to take advantage of the security gate which is at the entrance to the Ivy
Creek Subdivision and Broomley Road. He said Broomley farm, when making
application for a permit to build the driveway (in 1994), was told by the Zoning
Administrator "because the applicant wanted to locate the drive on the other side of the
security gate, she thought it might require an amendment to the Ivy Creek PRD
limitation on access." He explained: "At that time we did not agree that building a
private drive access on the other side of the gate required an amendment to the PRD,
1%W but we didn't fight it; we simply applied for the amendment. The amendment was
/J,z3
11-7-95 11
1%W passed unanimously by the Commission and the Board, the building permit was
obtained and the applicant built the driveway which exists. The owner did everything
he was legally required to do to build the driveway. There was no rush; he obtained the
permit in 1994 and built the driveway this year." (Mr. Blue pointed out that the
notification error referred to by Mr. Payne was a County responsibility and not the
owner's responsibility.) Mr. Rooker said he had not known of a possible defect in the
notification until this current matter had arisen. He pointed out that Broomley Farm
could have located its driveway at any point on Broomley Road below the security gate
without seeking an amendment to the Ivy Creek PRD. He felt that the driveway's
location on the other side of the security gate is advantageous to Farmington. He
pointed out that the property has always had an access onto Broomley Road, directly
across from the Flordon Subdivision, which has approximately 100 homes. He said
Farmington benefits from the fact that the property accesses onto Broomley Road
(because) 80% of the farm traffic travels off of Broomley Road and does not use the
Farmington roads. He said the owner of Broomley Farm could, if he chose, close the
access to Broomley Road and use the Farmington roads for access. He pointed out
that the driveway is a private driveway and is not a private road. It does not meet any
requirements for a private road and could not support subdivision usage. He stressed
that Broomley Farm is not the applicant in this petition and the applicant feels "it is not
appropriate to discuss taking away private property rights of this separately owned
parcel, not involved in the rezoning." He explained that any subdivision of the Broomley
property would require a public hearing and access will have to be addressed at that
time as a normal part of the process. He said the owner of the Broomley property does
not have legal ability to grant access across his property to serve adjoining parcels.
09
Addressing the issue of private gates, Mr. Rooker said: "We think it is inappropriate for
government to be involved in directing the kind, place, manner, number of times a day
that an owner must operate a private gate on his private driveway. Broomley Farm is
not before the Commission. Broomley Farm has a system of private gates on the
property to maintain privacy and that is a personal decision of the owner and not one to
be legislated. Trespassing has never been an issue with this property. We would ask
you to vote in favor of this downzoning because we think it benefits the County and
benefits the surrounding property owners. It certainly doesn't put the surrounding
property owners in any worse position than they are in right now."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Kamptner if "it is necessary that the final sentence in proffer
number 3 really repeat, verbatim, an approval in a previous rezoning." She questioned
the purpose of that sentence. Mr. Kamptner explained: "The one thing it does
accomplish, assuming that the notice in the 1994 rezoning was void, this hopefully will
cure any defect that might exist."
/f�
11-7-95 12
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Kamptner: "And you are agreeing that the zoning is void because
of the notification?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "I am not agreeing to that. We won't
concede that but there was a problem with the notice."
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on the appropriateness of the Planning
Commission being involved in this issue. Mr. Kamptner replied: "Within this particular
application, our office's concern would be that some of the suggested proffers that are
being raised in the correspondence deal with the Broomley Farm property which is
beyond the scope of the Ivy Creek property. If the concern is limiting access from the
Ivy Creek property through Broomley Farm onto Brook Road, then we might suggest
additional language if the language in proffer number 3 is inadequate to assure the
Farmington residents that Ivy Creek residences won't go down to Brook Road." Mr.
Blue asked: "And it is appropriate for us to discuss that?" Mr. Kamptner replied:
"Provided that the proffer itself is going to apply to the Ivy Creek property and that it
addresses the types of issues that arise as a result of the rezoning. Controlling the
access from Ivy Creek is a different matter than suggesting that the Broomley Farm
property driveway be used in a certain way and that it have certain access rights.
Broomley Farm is not an applicant in this matter and they are not, based upon the
proffers that were submitted, part owner of the Ivy Creek Subdivision."
Mr. Blue said he thought it would be appropriate to give both parties more time to
negotiate before the Commission takes action.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed. He also said he would like to see the staff report and the
minutes from the previous rezoning (1994). Staff said they could provide that
information. Mr. Keeler recalled that the Commission had been "entreated to approve
the request because of the gates."
Ms. Imhoff commented: "I think the Ivy Creek access has to be addressed. I think it is
wonderful that this is a downzoning. I think it agrees with the Comp Plan, but I do
remember a little about that meeting and it was very much presented that there would
not be vehicles going through Farmington."
Ms. Huckle recalled the driveway was presented as just a farm road for Broomley Farm.
Mr. Dotson said the driveway is still presented in that same sense. Mr. Dotson said: "I
think the applicant and the residents have heard from the County Attorney and from us
that the fashioning of a solution here needs to address the property shown in red rather
than the adjacent property."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA 95-14 for Dennis Rooker/Ivy Creek, Inc., be
deferred to December 5, 1995.
EM
IJ
cm
M
11-7-95
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Blue Ridge Highway Commercial Preliminary Site Plan - Request for
Reconsideration
13
Mr. Keeler explained that the Board had approved the applicant's request for a waiver
of critical slope regulations and therefore the Preliminary Site Plan was being sent back
to the Commission for reconsideration.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Commission reconsider the Blue Ridge Highway
Commercial Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Staff distributed the applicant's text for the North Fork Business Park. There was no
discussion.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
V. Wayne ilimber , ecr tary
W�