Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 11 84 PC MinutesSeptember 11, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, September 11, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Ms. Patricia Cooke. Other officials persent were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. SP-84-41 GEORGE A. BOWLES, III -.Request in accordance with Section 24.2.2.1 to locate a raquetball/tennis club and skating rink on a 9f acre part of 14.247 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property is located on the west side of Route 29 North about .3 mile north of Rio Road. Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A. Charlottesville Magisterial. District. It was moved and seconded to indefinitely defer SP-84-41 for George A. Bowles, III. There being no discussion, the motion was unanimously approved and SP-84-41 was indefinitely deferred. SP-84-57 OTIC REALTY SERVICE CORPORATION (UNOGEN) - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2.1 to locate a pharmaceutical laboratory and production facility on 9.67 ± acres, zoned LI, Light Industry, part of 15.11 ± acres. Property located on the south side of Route 738 near Ivy. Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C, part of. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Bowerman stated that this corporation had requested deferral until September 25, 1984. It was moved and seconded to defer until September 25, 1984, SP-84-57 UNOGEN. There being no discussion, the motion was unanimously approved and SP-84-57 was deferred until September 25. SP-84-48 B. ALLEN AND SANDRA BENN - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(8) to locate a mobile -home park on part of 37.73 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on the south side of Route 250 West adjacent to Western Albemarle High School. Tax Map 56, Parcel 17, part of. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Bowerman noted that the applicant was requesting deferral of this item until such a time as the planning staff and the Planning Commission have had an opportunity to review the proposed changes in mobile home ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that since adjacent property owners were not notified of this in time, the staff report would be given at this meeting and public comment would be accepted, but the item would then be deferred indefinitely. �7 September 11, 1984 Page 2 Mr. James Donnelly gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman then opened the meeting up to comments from the public. Mr. Carlos Guitierrez, Superintendent of Albemarle County Schools and representative of the Albemarle"County School Board, read a statement drafted by the School Board regarding the Benn request. As an adjacent property owner in the above - referenced petition to locate a mobile home park on U.S. 250 near Western Albemarle High School, the Albemarle School Board held a lengthy discussion at its meeting on September 10, 1984, and the Board wishes to exaress its concern as follows: (1) The School Board expressed its opposition to having a dense population adjacent to .the School. (2) Access to the school property by residents of the development was a concern and the School Board requests the Planning Commission to require appropriate barriers if such site is. approved now or in the future. The impact or. enrollment in the nearby schools could result from numerous units being placed in a short period of time. (The School Boarc) asked for a staged development, planned with an upper limit as to the ntaaber of units, a time table and possibly the limits of units per year in order to allow for proper planning. (3) The area around Albemarle High School is beautifully landscaped and well situated from an aesthetic point of view and therefore the School Board wants to be certain that any development adjacent to this property is planned and maintained in a manner which will preserve the natural beauty of the site. Because Western Albemarle has more than 1,000 (one thousand) pupils in daily attendance and due to the difficulty in accounting for these pupils at all times during the day (this is a legal responsibility of the Board), the Board asks that fencing or other appropriate barriers be situated so as to prevent pedestrian traffic between the school property and the development. A similar request was made last year in regard to the proposed shopping center. Finally, the Albemarle School Board fully recognizes that its role as an adjacent property owner is limited to asking and proposing. The majority of the Board approves the concept of additional needed housing in the county; however, they ask the Planning Commission to consider carefully all of the factors listed as well as others raised by concerned parties before approving the referenced petition. 15 September 11, 1984 Page 3 Mr. John Marston, a life-long citizen of the area, identified himself and stated that a number of concerned citizens were present whom he would ask to express their concerns concerning the proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to locate a mobile home park adjacent to Albemarle High School. (Mr. Marston then called on a number of citizens.) Ms. Anastasia Nielson, owner of a farm on Miller School Road, stated that she was not opposed to this type of development, but that she was opposed to the proposed location of this particular development. she felt this type of housing should be placed in urban areas where facilities (utilities) already exist. Mr. Gene Baldwin, a resident of the area for 35 years, stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Guitierrez' statement, and was particularly concerned with the aesthetic characteristics of the area being maintained. He admitted there to be a need for this type of housing, but felt there were other locations better suited. Mr. Daniel Shiflett, a student at Western Albemarle, represented his father and stated that he felt the area should remain as it is, a rural area. Mr. James Fretwell, a resident of the area for 60 years, stated his opposition to the mobile home park being placed next to the school and was concerned about the traffic problems that would be created. He stated he was in agreement with the other citizens who had already spoken. Mr. Christopher Marston, a student at the university and a resident of the area, stated his opposition to the plan. Rev. Lee Marston, a resident of the community being discussed for 47 (forty-seven) years, stated his feeling that the proposed mobile home park should be located in a place different than the one being proposed. It was his hope that the Commission would give the matter careful consideration. Ms. Susan Wildman, speaking as a parent of children at western Albemarle High School, stated that there had been parent opposition to the shopping center location proposed by Mr. Benn previously, and it was understood that Mr. Benn had no further plans for developing the rest of the property. She further stated that the traffic was a primary consideration and that the addition of themobile home park would create additional problems for the school (in addition to those that would be created by the shopping center). She also stated that at the time the shopping center proposal was discussed, it was her understanding that development on that side of Rt. 250 was not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan or with the Scenic Highway Concept. She added that a great number of people were opposed to this project, even though they were not all present. Mr. Thomas Milius, a resident of the area, read a prepared statement. He stated that he opposed this deviation from the Comprehensive Plan September 11, 1984 Page 4 and felt that to disregard the Plan would be a waste of pooled community effort. His main concern was the increased danger to the school children that would be created by the extra traffic problems. He also pointed that U.S. 250 is a state designated Historic Highway and the installation of traffic lights would cause this designation to be lost. GIs. Elizabeth Mallory, a resident of the area, stated her opposition to the proposal because of the increased traffic problems. Mr. Marston asked if there were any other citizens would like to speak. Mr. Marston then stated he would sum up what had been discussed. He stated it was not in the Comprehensive Plan (revised '71, '72 and '82); it is zoned Al (one unit per ten (10) acres); traffic should be considered because of two busy intersections; the availability of utilities was a concern. (Marston felt that if water and sewage from Charlottesville was made available a precedent could be set which would eventually itvite development all along Rt. 250 from Charlottesville to Crozet.) Mr. Marston pointed out that the plan indicated that the mobile home park was to be located on what the developer has designated as septic lines for the shopping center. Mr. tiiarston also stated that two (2) trailer parks are being discontinued. �Ir. Marston was also concerned that the applicant had even further development for this property in mind for the future. Mr. Marston stated that Albemarle County should establish regulations for mobile home parks that would ensure that this type of development was attractive (as in other states). He ended by stating that he hoped that the Commission would go beyond deferring the matter and reject it completely. Mr. Roy Patterson, speaking for the Citizens for Albemarle, stated that his organization endorsed the staff report and believed that this proposed development was in the wrong place. Specifically, �Ir. Patterson stated (1) The density is greater than that recommended for the Rivanna Watershed; (2) A development of this size should be located in a growth area; (3) A dense 60-unit development should have public water and sewage which are not available at this location and it was believed that extension of the utility lines to this area would be contrary to good planning that has already been done. He urged the Commission not to grant the special use permit: Mr. Bowerman determined there was no additional public comment and placed the matter before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Donnelly if his understanding that the applicant wished this matter deferred was correct. Mr. Donnelly replied affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the matter be deferred indefinitely until such a time as the Commission has addressed the Mobile Home Study and a policy for mobile homes has .been been developed. September 11, 1984 Page 5 Ms. Diehl moved to defer indefinitely SP-84-48 for B. Allen and Sandra Benn. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved and SP-84-48 was indefinitely deferred. Ms. Diehl stated that when the matter does come before the Commission again, it would be helpful for the Commissioners to have copies of tonight's minutes. At this point Mr. Bowerman stated that a few minutes would be taken for those who desired to leave the meeting to do so. Mr. Bowerman stated that the adjacent property owners would be notified of the deferral. ZMA-84-19 HEC, INC. - Request to rezone 58.91 acres from R-1, Residential, to R-4, Residential with a proffer of a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre. Property located on the south side of Route 654 (Barracks Road) just west of its intersection with Route 656 (Georgetown Road). Tax Map 60, Parcel 24,.part of. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Michel stated that he had a conflict of interests in this matter and excused himself from the meeting. Ms. Mary Joy Scala presented the staff report. Mr. W.S. Roudabush, representing HEC, Inc. and the owners of the property, addressed the meeting. Mr. Roudabush used several maps and drawings to explain the property location and the proposal. Mr. Roudabush stated that it was anticipated that at the time a site plan is developed additional land will be added to Barracks Road to allow one lane to be used for a left turn movement of traffic leaving Charlottesville and turning into this property. He further stated there is public sewage available in Barracks Road which connects with a line within.the city and there is also a twelve (12) inch water line in the road and a county -owned storage tank is on top Mt. Faulcon which assures adequate water pressure. Mr. Roudabush continued stating that the site drains almost entirely toward the Meadow Creek Watershed Basin with the exception of a small area along the margin of Barracks Road which presently drains towards Barracks Road but does not go to the watershed area --it is intercepted by the highway and comes down to a storm sewer that originates at the intersection of Georgetown Road and that water goes into the Meadow Creek Basin. /9 September 11, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Roudabush explained that the appiicant had not gone forward with any type of site plan.for this property and stated this to be only a rezoning request. He added, however, there to be some logical ways of developing this property and the owners had concurred with this type of development. He stated the property was not intended to be developed immediately. . Mr. Roudabush then displayed a drawing which was meantto show what would probably be done with the property if the rezoning request was approved. The drawing showed an entrance onto Barracks Road with some sort of entrance into the property serving the entire tract with a single road with possibly some cul-de-sacs going off to other areas. He stated the area immediately adjacent to Canterbury Hills would be developed with single-family dwellings compatible to Canterbury Hills. The area adjacent to Mt.'Faulcon, the :McLean propertywould be developed in single-family dwellings in similar ways. He stated there would be some sort of open area adjacent to the lake. Mr. Roudabush stated that after receipt of the staff report, consultation was made with the owners of the property and additional proffers have been offered. (He noted that an attempt hadbeen made to contact all of the adjacent property owners and he believed that all the owners of large tracts and the owners of lots in Canterbury Hills have been contacted through a resident of the neighborhood and a meeting was held by these people last week.) He also added that the owners of the property had discussed this rezoning with Belfield School, with Dr. McLean and with the owners of lots in Canterbury Hills who attended the above -mentioned meeting. As a result of that meeting the following proffer was added: Smithfield Road will not be extended or used as a connector road in any way. Additional proffers (along with those already stated) are.listed below: 1. The maximum overall density of the 58.91 acre tract will not exceed 3 dwelling units per acre or a total of 176 dwelling units. 2. Only single family detached dwellings will be located within 200 feet of the boundary of other parcels not owned or optioned by HEC, Inc. 3. Smithfield Road will not be extended or used as a connector road in any sway. 4. The minimum lot size for single-family dwellings to be located within the 200 foot strip adjacent to other ownership would be 1/3 of an acre based on gross areas. 5. A wooded buffer area 300 feet in width will be preserved along the margin of Rt. 654 and an additional 30 foot setback will be observed for location of structures along this highway. 6. A single access from Rt. 654 will serve this development. 7. A storm sewer system will be designed to intercept drainage and direct it into Meadow Creek Basin. 8. All roads within this development will be public roads. ''� r September 11, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Roudabush stated he believed these proferrs addressed all of the concerns stated by staff in their report. The only concern which was not addressed with a proffer was the upgrading of the Canterbury Hills Pumping Station. He stated the reason for this was that the Service Authority did not know what was involved in upgrading the station and that there may be less expensive alternatives available to the developer. He stated that it would be preferable to upgrade that system if it were found that this was one of the more feasible options. He further added that part of this property could be served by gravity sewer (through Rt. 654 to an existing sewer) and part of it would have to be served by the sewer in Canterbury Hills or some other alternative development. Mr. Roudabush emphasized no plan is in existence to develop this property immediately and no site plan is in the making, but zoning is necessary if there is to be any development in the future. Mr. Roudabush stated that the owners feel the property is in a designated growth area. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was public comment regarding this request. Mr. Bob Garland, a resident of Canterbury Hills, stated that his property adjoins a previously rezoned tract (not the tract in question tonight). He stated that with the addition of the proffers presented previously in the meeting by Mr. Roudabush, he had no strong objections to the rezoning. He exphasized that he was speaking only for himself, not as a spokesman for Canterbury Hills. He stated his primary concern was with the lake (storm water detention basis). It was his hope that the Commission would require. that this "lake" be constructed in such a way as to actually resemble a lake and not a cesspool. Mr. Robert Hollo, an adjacent property owner, stated that most of his reservations had been answered by 200 foot buffer zone and the additional proffers offered previously in the meeting. He requested that one additional proffer be added, that being that the 30 foot wooded buffer which is proposed for the Barracks Road property be applied to those areas that are adjoining Canterbury Hills. He said if this could be added to the other proffers, he would have no objection.. Dr. W.C. McLean, owner of the Stillhouse Mountain property which is adjacent on the west side of the proposed area, first expressed his appreciation to Mr. Michel for explaining the proposal to him. He stated his maim concern was that some additional buffer could be added between his property and the proposed rezoned area. He added he would also favor a lower density than the proposed three (3) dwelling units per acre on the property that is between the Stillhouse Mountain property and the rezoned area as well as between the rezoned area and Canterbury Hills. He also stated concern that the "lake" be clean and well kept. Mr. Ned Slaughter, representing the Colthurst Homeowners Association, stated it was the desire of the Colthurst homeowners that the future development be "reasonable and in stages". He added that his c�O September 11, 1984 Page 8 organization felt that Rl zoning of the present tract to be correct. ,Mr. Roudabush addressed the concern about the lake. He stated the lake had come into being as part of the Hunter RPN and that any development done on either piece of property would recognize the existence of that as a planned feature. He further stated that the characteristics of the lake (depth and size) would ensure that it would be a clean lake. 'there being no additional public comment, Mr. Bowerman placed the application before the commission. Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Scala to clarify the location of the property in relationship to its proximity to the urban area. Ms. Scala affirmed that it was close to the urban area. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Scala if the proffers presented by -Mr. Roudabush answered the questions that had been raised by staff. Ms. Scala responded that her only uncertainty was in regard to the buffer along Barracks Road. She asked if that would be measured as a 30 foot buffer plus an additional 30 foot set -back and would that be measured from the road right-of-way, making a 60 foot set -back. She said she felt this would be a fair set -back along that area. She said she was originally going to suggest a 30 foot wooded -area, but with the 60 foot set -back it might be possible to get that wooded area preserved. Mr. Roudabush stated that it was anticipated that with a 30 foot rear yard and a 30 foot restricted preservation area, a lot of trees would be left that would essentially give a 60 foot buffer zone. Ms. Scala stated that the set -back in R4 is 25 feet. sir. Bowerman asked Mr. Roudabush if any attention had been given to the single-family detached housing buffer area being limited to 1/3 (one-third) acre each. He asked if there were any consideration for a buffer between the back of that property and the property line in the tentative plans. Mr. Roudabush indicated he did not understand what was being asked. Mr. Bowerman repeated the question, asking if there were any plans for the adjacent property lines between Canterbury Hills and the property to the west in terms of any type of additional buffer along those property lines above and beyond the designation of single-family houses in those areas on 1/3 (one-third) acre lots. Mr. Roudabush stated that had not been discussed at the meeting with the Canterbury people, though one gentleman speaking at this meeting had mentioned it. He stated that the primary reason for the buffering along Barracks Road is that those houses that would back up to it would not necessarily be single-family dwellings. He stated they would .1J September 11, 1984 Page 9 probably be much closer together and characteristically the yards would be different. He stated that was the reason it was felt some sort of buffer was needed, not for the residents of this property, but so that the users of Barracks Road would not have the visability of these structures along the highway. He added that same concern would not apply to the single- family lots. He said they would likely be more heavily landscaped. Mr. Bowerman asked what the rear lot line distance would be. Mr. Roudabush stated it to be 25 feet in R4 zoning. Ms. Scala asked for clarification as to the numbering of the additional prof- fers. It was determined that the additional proffers presented tonight should begin with No. 4, since three (3) had already been presented. Mr. Skove stated that he felt this request, for rezoning from R1 to R4, would be tripling the density and be a very large jump. He said he could support more than an R1 as part of an RPN, but that he could not support this as it is. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the density of Canterbury Hills. Ms. Scala said it was zoned R2, but she was uncertain as to the density. She thought that most lots ranged from 1/3 (one-third) to 1/2 (one-half) acre. Mr. Bowerman then asked if the buffering was to be compatible with Canter- bury Hills density, not the entire development but at least that area which is adjacent to Canterbury Hills. Ms. Scala responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area are one (1) to four (4) dwelling units per acre. He added that this was in the urban area and facilities were available. He said that though he would have liked to have seen a planned approach, he agreed with staff that the additional proffers had answered his questions. He continued that the question regarding sewage disposal is one that cannot be answered until plans are drawn and the most -feasible method can be determined. He stated that although he did not know the answers to all questions (concerning type of housing, roads, etc.), he felt that the concerns of the nieghborhood had been met by the additional proffers of the applicant. He concluded that he could support the application. Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the applicant had presented a good proposal, primarily due to the additional proffers. However, he felt this to be a transition area between the rural agricultural and the lower density areas to the west and that area toward the east and north. He added that he felt the particular location and its set-up with Barracks Road was one of the most attractive areas close to town. He felt that though the Comprehensive Plan does state R1 to R4, he would'be more inclined to favor the low end of that designation. He felt that the additional traffic on Barracks Road, so close to Georgetown Road, would create problems and that it would be more conducive to that area to be on the lower end of that density scale. He concluded that he would not support the application at this time. o�� September 11, 1984 Page 10 Ms. Diehl stated that she would have preferred to see it as an RPN and at a lower density. However, she stated she would support the application with the additional proffers, Mr. Wilkerson stated he would support the application with the additional proffers. Mr. Wilkerson moved that Zoning Map Amendment 84-19 HEC, Inc. for rezoning from R1 to R4 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with the eight (8) proffers as offered by the applicant regarding this property. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. The motion was approved with Mr. nowerman, mr. Wilkerson, vs. Diehl and Mr. Gould voting in favor and Mr. Cogan and Mr. Skove opposed. Mr. Michel did not vote, raving excused himself from the matter earlier. Mr. Bowerman stated this matter would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 3, 1984. It was.determined there.was no other OLD BUSINESS to be taken up. Ender NEW BUSINESS, Mr. Bowerman pointed out that a copy of the minutes of the September 4, 1984 minutes had been distributed to the Commissioners. He noted that this being Ms. Sessoms' first attempt at recording the minutes, she had asked for the Commissioners' comments. Ms. Diehl inquired as to the status of the request for signs to be placed on property that was to be rezoned, making it easier to locate these areas for inspection. Ms. Scala stated she would check on this and that the signs were supposed to be posted. She added that due to the turnover in personnel, there may have been a mix-up. Mr. Bowerman encouraged the Commissioners to read the staff report on mobile homes that will be discussed at the September 18 meeting. yis. Scala added that Mr. Reeler would like for bonuses and sidewalks to be discussed again. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible to place the two special permit requests at the top of the agenda and put the deferred items afterward. There being no other new business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ,lames R. Donnell DS 0— �—�