Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 09 84 PC MinutesOctober 9, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 9, 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. Tim Michel; and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Devel- opment; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 25, 1984 meeting were approved as written. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that agenda items 4(b), dealing with Meeting Dates, and 4(c), dealing with Sidewalks, had been placed on next week's agenda (October 16) and would not be dealt with at tonight's meeting. He also pointed out that the Mobile Home Study and the Interstate Interchange Study were on next week's agenda. ZTA-84-03 DRIVE-IN WINDOWS; PARKING GARAGES - Amend Zoning Ordinance to permit parking garage structures and drive-in window features by special use permit only. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-84-03, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit parking garage structures and drive-in window features by special use permit only, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1984. ZTA-84-04 BONUS PROVISIONS - Amend Zoning Ordinance to delete density bonus factors; amend Zoning Ordinance to provide for increased residential density for dedication of land to public use. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. October 9, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Bowerman invited public comment. Mr. Blake Hurt asked the Commission why this proposal (to delete the density bonus factors) was being made. He stated his company (Republic Homes) had used the bonus provisions and had found them to be useful. He was against this proposal. Mr. Wagner, representing Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, addressed the Commission: He stated his organization had not had a chance to meet since becoming aware of this proposal. He also indicated concern about the public notification procedures, pointing out his feeling that most people do not read legal notices. Mr. Wagner urged the Commission not to delete the density bonus factors without making a real effort to inform the public of the proposal, and give them a chance to respond. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Michell's question as to how a higher density could be achieved through a PRD approach, Mr. Keeler explained that under the new Ordinance R15 is the highest density conven- tional zoning (15 units/acre.by right, increasable to 20 units/acre through use of the bonuses).. in order to.go beyond.20 units/acre, he explained, the only available mechanism in the Ordinance is a PRD (or conceivably a PUD) which, inand of itself, is a re -zoning. He stated the maximum allowable would be 35 units/acre. Mr. Payne stated this was done intentionally so that higher density developments would have to be done this way (with a re -zoning). In response to Mr. Hurt's concerns, Mr. Bowerman stated it was the feeling of the Commission that the bonuses have not been working in the best interests of county citizens and have not been producing the intended result (in relation to landscaping, open space, etc.). He added that higher densities than should be allowed have resulted on many properties. Ms. Diehl pointed out that one of the bonus provisions, that dealing with low-cost housing, was one that the Commission_ had hoped would be utilized and that provision has not been used at all to date. Mr. Bowerman stated his displeasure with matters coming before the Commission and then having all "the guns come out" and all the information cows out between the time the Commission meets and the time the Board meets. He stated he would be willing to defer this matter until the home builders have had a chance to present their side of the question. He added he would like for the Commission to have a chance to see all the information along with the Board. Mr. Payne said there were no problems involved in deferring this matter. (/ October 9, 1984 Page 3 Both Mr. Skove and Mr. Cogan indicated their willingness to defer the matter to allow more public input. Mr. Cogan moved that ZTA-84-04, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to delete density bonus factors and to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for increased residential density for dedication of land to public use, be deferred until October 30, 1984. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl emphasized she would like for the record to show that she was voting in favor of deferral in order to accept comment not only from Blue Ridge Home Builders, but also from any interested group or civic organization or any other persons who might feel they are affected by this. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the media might be helpful in advertising items of this nature (where more people are affected than just a few property owners). He stated his agreement with Ms. Diehl's statement. It was determined that staff does maintain a mailing list (35-40 individuals and organizations) who are mailed copies of:agendas, etc., the only requirement being that interested parties provide self-addressed stamped envelopes. Mr. Keeler said staff is happy to..furnish information to anyone who requests it, but he did not feel it would be wise to select a group -of people to mail information to because of the risk involved in excluding someone. The above -stated motion to defer ZTA-84-04 was unanimously approved. WORK SESSION KESWICK - Request for Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Keswick Country Club Land Trust has requested amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Keswick area in order to develop a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed ± 500 acre tract would consist of 150 total dwelling units (for a gross density of 1 dwelling unit per two acres), continuance of golf course and club house, and addition of 34 "guest rooms" in conjunction with the Club. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. Ms. Imhoff stated that, in terms of a re -zoning, three issues need to be resolved at -the very beginning: (1) Adequacy of available water; (2) Arrangement between the golf course and the residential development --is it a joint or an individual proposal; (3) Will the golf course be commercial or non-commercial. 4q October 9, 1984 Page 4 It was determined that the applicant has made a formal request for a PUD (application dated August 21, 1984). Mr. Bowerman stated he did feel that this matter required a Comprehensive Plan Amendment because of the impact of a proposal of this magnitude and because of the many issues involved; however, he did not feel the County should be committed to amending the Comprehensive Plan at this time since the entire review of the Plan is scheduled to come up in 12 months. He felt it would be premature to do a separate study at this time. Mr. Skove stated his agreement with Mr. Bowerman's position. He also suggested that it might be desirable to establish a procedure for a more frequent review of the Plan (more often than every five years). It was determined that the projected growth for the county was approximately 2,000 people/year and the proposed project would account for 20% of this. Mr. Cogan stated his agreement with. Mr. Bowerman's position. He emphasized the importance of determining the water availability in this matter. He added that .he felt the proposal did fit in with the present ordinances and would qualify as a village. He also felt the proximity with 164 was favorable. Mr. Cogan concluded by saying that although he felt this was a good location for growth, the many questions raised in this issue would have to be resolved before proceeding. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the applicant were to move ahead with.the PUD request, the minimum information that would be re- quired would be:(1) the actual availability of water; and (2) the golf -course usage. In regard to the usage of the golf course, Mr. Payne pointed out that if it is a commercial use, it plainly cannot be counted as open space; but if it is not a commercial use the Ordinance makes it a determination of the Commission to decide whether it is appropriate for it to be considered as open space. Mr. Gould stated his agreement with Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Skove that it would be inappropriate to review the Comprehensive Plan at this time. He added that he would be in favor of more frequent review of the Plan. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the water availability issue would require a great deal of study. He added that, all matters being considered, he felt this should be incorporated.into the regular review of the Plan. In discussing the more frequent review of the Plan, it was felt that while every five years was not frequent enough, every year or two years would be too frequent. Mr. Bowerman stated it should be possible to arrange a schedule which would allow some flexibility. 6-5 October 9, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Payne stated that the Commission might wish to consider scheduling more frequent reviews based on the subject matter, making some areas more frequently reviewed than others. (e.g. Every five years for the entire Plan, every three years for the Urban area, etc.) Ms. Imhoff stated that even though this was a work session, there were several members of the public present who would like to address the Commission. Mr. Bowerman then invited brief comments from the public, stating that only those comments should be made which were in addition to letters already received by staff or in addition to staff comments. Mr. Archibald Craige, a resident of Keswick, addressed the Commission and asked if his understanding was correct that if the Commission chose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding this proposal then the matter was concluded. Mr. Payne responded that this was not correct, and explained that the matter before the Commission at this time was whether or not to consider, in a plenary _ fashion, an amendment to the Plan. He added that a favorable action by the Commission on this request would simply put the "wheels in motion." Mr. Payne further explained that the Commission could consider a re- zoning without amending the Plan. Mr. Cralge stated his concern over the inadequacies of the roads in the proposed development. Mr. Craige stated he felt the desires of the Keswick residents ;eredemonstrated by the petition presented to the Commission containing 486 signatures opposed to the proposal. Mr. Peadar Little, a resident of Keswick, addressed the Commission and stated that he had felt the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Keswick area as a rural area had offered residents some guarantee that it would remain rural. He stated concern over water availability, road inadequacies and overburdening of the school system. He also stated his interest in knowing what the density would be if the golf course were omitted. W.lbberts Coles, a resident of the area, addressed the Commission and stated his concern over the lack of utilities available to the area. He added the petition had shown that the residents of the area were against this proposal. Mr. David Sutton, a resident of Keswick, addressed the Commission and stated his concern regarding the proposed location of the well for the development. He stated his property was located in this same area and the two wells on his property were both dry. He also stated that as a former member of the School Board, he was aware of commitments made to the parents of Stone -Robinson Elementary School children that they would not be re -districted 6,11 October 9,.1984 Page 6 again for a five-year period. He felt that the possibility of sending these children somewhere else would be contrary to a moral obligation made by -the School Board. Mr. Christian Gehman, a resident of the area and a former rural mail carrier in the area, addressed the Commission and stated his concern as to what would happen to the two relatively poor neighborhoods (Black Cat Road and the road next to the Country Club) which would be displaced as a result of this proposal. Ms. Pat Spicer Napoleon, a Cismon.t resident and teacher at Stone -Robinson Elementary School, addressed the Commission and stated her concern in regard to the negative impact this development would have on the school. Mr. Paul Bernath, a Keswick resident, addressed the Commission and stated his concern in regard to: (1) Inadequacies of the roads; (2) Lack of water;,and (3) Negative impact on the natural beauty of the area. Dr. William Orr, a neighboring property owner,.addressed the Commission and stated he did not feel the proposal to have the two available creeks.used to carry off the sewage was feasible since these are quite often dry in the summer months. He added that he did not .know of anyone in the area who was in favor of this proposal and stated his opposition to the development. Mr. Peadar Little spoke again stating that he felt the information contained in the engineer's report on ground water conditions was deficient. At this point, the Chairman closed the meeting to public comment. Mr. Skove moved that the Request to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it affects the Keswick area be denied. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Mr. Keeler had requested.that the Commissioners go over the report dealing with Meeting Dates for Site Plans, Subdivisions, Rezonings, and Speciai.Lse Permits which had been deferred until next week's meeting. Mr. Bowerman stated that 95% of the Commission's time is spent dealing with site plans, subdivision, rezonings.and special use permits. The result of this has been that Community Development is heard from only when the schedule will allow and many items are being decided by, staff without any feedback from the Commission. He asked the Commission to consider the possibility of creating some sort of mechanism that might free one meeting date a month to deal with Community Development issues. 611� October 9, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Cogan stated he felt one of the key problems is the issue of exposing these matters to the public. He added that in trying to solve the overall problem, an acceptable way must be found to give at least as much exposure of these issues to the public as has been done in the past. He felt overcoming that barrier would free the Commission considerably. Mr. Michel said he felt this was a very large barrier and he did not see a solution. It was pointed out that this had been discussed before and it was decided not to change the system because of the fear of excluding the public in one way or another. Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Bowerman felt that if the matter were given careful enough consideration a satisfactory alternative could be found. Mr. Michel stated he was in favor of this, but he was concerned with the fact that many of the Community Development projects were on -going and he did not want the Commission to get caught up in the on -going part, but rather be periodically "caught -up" on these issues. Ms. Imhoff stated she was in favor of presenting periodic up -dates to the Commission in order to obtain their comments and direction. Mr. Michel asked that when these issues were brought to the Commission all alternatives to be reviewed be spelled out so as to make the most efficient use of time. The Commission was reminded of the meeting with the Board of Supervisors scheduled for November 7, 1984 at 3:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. DS James R. o ly, Secretary 0