HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 26 1994 PC Minutes7-26-94
JULY 26, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 26,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce
Dotson; and Mr. Torn Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda
Hipski, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and Vaughan.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
July 12, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the July 12, 1994 Board of Supervisors'
meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Commission was receiving applications for:
Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to add 117.107 acres to the
Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District. Properties described as Tax Map 63, Parcels 42A and
40, are located off State Route 612.
Addition to Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to add 393.160 acres to the
Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District. Properties described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 3A,
located on the east side of State Route 231.
Review of Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District - The existing Keswick Agricultural/Forestal
District will be reviewed for a proposed ten year renewal. The district consists of 6,151 acres
located on both sides of Rt. 22, and also on Rts. 648, 612, 610 and 616.
Review of Kinloch A cultural/Forestal Distric - The existing Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal
District will be reviewed for a proposed ten year renewal. The district consists of 1,680 acres
located on both sides of Rt. 231, and also on Rts. 22, 640, 740, and 783.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SUB-94-053 Northfields Recreation Area Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create three lots
averaging 0.88 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 62A(2), Section M, parcel 10A, is
467
7-26-94
located on the southwest side of Carrsbrook Drive between Northfields Road and Huntington
Road. This site is zoned R-2, Residential and is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. This site is recommended for low density residential (1-4 du/acre) in Neighborhood
2. Deferred from the duly 5, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The report explained: "When this property was platted
in 1961, the words "Recreation Area" were shown on this lot. In 1990, the Board of
Supervisors was requested to hold public hearing for the purpose of vacating the term
"Recreation Area" from the existing lot in order to allow a subsequent subdivision of three
lots. The Board determined not to set a public hearing for the request to vacate. The
Planning Commission is being requested to determine if the proposed subdivision is otherwise
approvable under the provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Should the
Planning Commission make this positive finding, staff recommends the following action:
Approval with necessary conditions subject to the Board vacating the term 'Recreation Area.'
This procedure will still necessitate the issue of vacation be placed before the Board of
Supervisors. The Board would have benefit of the Planning Commission's review of the
subdivision." The report stated that "the plat meets the requirements for preliminary
approval" and recommended several conditions of approval.
Mr. Blue asked why the Commission was being asked to review this plat prior to the Board's
decision on the vacation issue. (This question was raised again later in the meeting.)
Ms. Hipski referred to the Board minutes of August 8, 1990 wherein Ms. Humphries had
stated she felt vacation of the term "recreation area" would set a precedent and she had
offered a motion that a public hearing not be set on this issue. Ms. Hipski explained it had
been staffs position at that time that the plat was not properly before the Board because it
had not been reviewed by the Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the
applicant had made a formal submission under the Subdivision application requirements.
Staff checked with the County Attorney's office and was advised to process the plat.
Mr. Blue concluded: "Then, in your opinion, we should hear this regardless of what the
Board is going to do about the vacation." Mr. Trank responded: "That's right. It 's our
position that the plat should be processed under the normal subdivision ordinance procedures
and that, in staffs view, since the technical requirements, other than the vacation issue, have
been satisfied, as a preliminary matter, that it's appropriate for you to reach a decision based
upon staffs recommendation at this point and reserve to the Board of Supervisors the vacation
issue." Mr. Blue understood: "The vacation issue should not enter into our thinking or
approval process at all. That's beyond our (purview)." Mr. Trank: "That's exactly right. The
Board ruled on that issue, in a sense, in 1990. It is a Board issue and it is up to the Board to
decide whether or not to entertain a request to review its decision." Mr. Blue: "Even if
individual Planning Commissioners believe that the placement of that term 'recreation area' on
the initial plat, did reserve that, ... we shouldn't even consider that in our decision because
that's not our realm of responsibility. We ought to consider that this is new ground and has
nothing to do with recreational area on the original plat, even though there is a good bit of
discussion in our staff report over that very thing." Mr. Trank: "You should consider it only
5-'�
7-26-94
to the extent that it is an appropriate condition for approval of staffs recommendations, but it
is not something that we could deny this on." Mr. Blue: "So the members of the public that
might be here tonight who have based a lot of their opposition on the fact that they thought
this was going to be a recreation area when they bought their property --that should not really
have any bearing on our decision." Mr. Trank: "It should not."
The applicant was first represented by Mr. Fred Payne. (He was accompanied by Dr. Charles
Hurt (owner of the property and developer of Northf elds) and Mr. Aubrey Huffman (the
surveyor who had drawn the plat.) His comments included the following:
--He disagreed with Mr. Trank's comments. "In his view," he felt staff had not
presented the issue "the way it should be presented, the way it legally must be presented, and
the way we wish it to be presented."
--The applicant was not asking that the request be approved, on the condition "that
something else take place." (NOTE: Mr. Payne was referring to condition 1(a) which
required the Board of Supervisors vacation of the term "recreation area" on the existing plat.)
--The applicant is asking that the "Commission act, within the scope of its authority, to
approve this plat."
--"This is an issue for the Commission to consider; it is not up to the Board of
Supervisors to consider; and the Board did not make any determination in 1990 that is
binding on the Commission. What the Board did was decline to take any action at all. In my
judgment, no action was necessary by the Board of Supervisors in 1990."
--"The issue before the Commission is, pure and simply, the redivision of a parcel of
land into 3 smaller parcels. It is a re -subdivision. That is all it is.,,
--The applicant does not believe "there is any vacation, in its technical sense, that is
necessary." "To the extent that there is a vacation to be done, that vacation is accomplished
simply by approving the plat."
--"Condition 1(a) is unacceptable to the applicant."
--The applicant believes the Commission has the authority to approve this re -
subdivision, and "in fact, (the Commission) has no choice."
--The applicant feels the issue is "that certain landowners believe they have a property
interest in this parcel, and we disagree with that.... But, I'm not going to argue that because
this is not the proper forum to argue that.... The proper forum is the Circuit Court and we are
prepared to address that issue in the proper forum. "The issue for you tonight is whether the
County, and specifically this Commission as the County's reviewing agent, has any authority
over this issue, and we think you do not, because this is simply a question of private property
rights between private property owners. Section 18-4 of the Subdivision Ordinance makes it
clear that the Commission has no role with respect to private covenants, restrictions,
easements and agreements."
--"All (the applicant) is asking (of the Commission) is to say that this subdivision, as
composed, complies with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances,.. -and our position is very
clearly that it does comply with those ordinances and, therefore, it is our position that there is
no need for any further action."
--He emphasized that the applicant was not asking the Commission to "do anything
that would effect anyone's property rights.
5-3
7-26-94 4
Mr. Blue asked if Mr. Payne's response to his earlier question to Mr. Trank would be the
same as Mr. Trank's had been, if Mr. Payne were in Mr. Trank's position (as he had been at
one time). Mr. Payne responded: "No, sir. What I would tell you is that, in my judgment,
that has no effect on the possibility of its being re -subdivided or the legality of your approval
of its being resubdivided. The only effect that is of any significance to a member of this
Commission is whether it creates a public interest in the property." He gave as an example:
"If a subdivision plat shows parcel X designated as public park or public school or public
street, then those things would clearly have to be vacated." Mr. Blue responded: "I think
you are straining it now. Just because it didn't have the word 'public' --it was understood."
Mr. Payne responded: "I couldn't disagree with you more because it is absolutely clear in the
record that there was never any intention to make a dedication on the part of the developer,
there was no requirement for any dedication, there was no acceptance, there has never been
any formal acceptance of any sort, there has never been any action toward that, and the
County has accepted tax money on it since 1961."
Mr. Blue: "I understand all that. If I follow Mr. Trank's advice and disregard any feeling
that I might have about recreational area ... I'd be inclined to support it; on the other hand, if I
follow your advice now, even though I disagree with it, I am allowed to consider that
recreational area and I, as an individual member, think that it did promise the public
something...." Mr. Blue concluded that he was "in a bind" about the situation.
Mr. Payne explained what he referred to as "an easy way out," i.e. "if you think there is some
requirement for a vacation of this, then we want you to deny it; we would rather have you
deny it than we would have you condition it in this fashion." He explained that a denial
would allow the applicant to appeal it in a straightforward fashion. He concluded: "I will tell
you, however, that I think that vote would be unlawful, but it would be procedurally
consistent although it would be substantively incorrect, in my judgment."
Referring to the minutes of the 1990 Board meeting, Mr. Payne pointed out that the
applicant's position has remained "consistent throughout, " i.e. that a vacation was not
necessary.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Payne: "Are you saying that a person has no right to rely on
something that is put on a plat and is of public record." Mr. Payne responded: 'I didn't say
that. What I said was that this is not the proper forum to adjudicate the rights of individual
property owners...." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about making "useless" things which are
a part of public record.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if his understanding was correct, that the applicant prefers that the
Commission either approve the plat without condition 1(a), or that it deny the plat. Mr.
Payne responded affirmatively, explaining that an approval with condition 1(a) would require
the applicant to go through another step which the applicant feels is not "necessary, either
procedurally or substantively." He further stated that if the Commission denies the request,
5-f
7-26-94
the applicant will appeal. He pointed out: "Again, I'm not asking you to deny it, because I
think that action is unlawful, but it is procedurally correct."
Mr. Dotson asked for some information on the history of the site. He was particularly
interested in not only the subject area, but also in the "other area designated recreation and
the area designated for a lake." He pointed out that the lake parcel had shown lot lines, but
the parcels designated for recreation had not shown lot lines. He asked about the thinking at
the time of the original subdivision vs. the thinking at this time. W. Payne began to address
this question with a history of the Subdivision Ordinance. He eventually explained that it had
not been "cost efficient" to develop those lots at that time because of the unavailability of
sewer facilities (even though this parcel, the other recreational parcel and the well lot were
expressly exempted from %hosO"ctions"). Leaving those lots undeveloped was a
reasonable alternative (though consideration was given to developing them commercially,
which would have been allowable since there was no zoning ordinance at that time). It was
felt that those problems (lack of sewer) would probably not exist at some future time, and, in
fact, they no longer exist because of the availability of public sewer to serve the property.
Mr. Dotson felt it would have been reasonable to conclude that the lake parcel would
eventually be developed since lot lines were shown, and likewise, it would have been
reasonable to assume that the other two recreational parcels would not be developed since no
lot lines were shown. Mr. Payne felt that the absence of lot lines indicated that those lots
were not intended for residential development "at that time." He did not think it was
intended that an absence of lot lines be interpreted "that they would never be developed under
any circumstance."
Dr. Hurt addressed the Commission and offered further explanation. He explained that prior
to the Zoning Ordinance, developers were not required to perform perk tests before putting
plats to record. He had drawn the lot lines on the lake parcel before he became aware that
much of the soil would not perk. He had then decided to construct a lake, to make the area
more attractive, with the intent that if there was public sewer at some future time, the lake
could be drained and the property developed at that time, and that was later done. He stated
that representations had been made, many years later, by sellers of property in Northfields,
about the lake, and even though he had not made those representations, a lot of ill will
towards him had been the result. Regarding the recreation lots, he explained that it would not
have been cost effective to have developed those lots, because of the percolation problem.
Therefore, he had thought, at the time, that it might be worthwhile to use these areas for a
future pool and tennis courts, which would be owned by a neighborhood association. A real
estate advisor whom he had consulted at that time (Mr. George Gilmer) had advised against
that idea, citing problems which homeowners' associations often experience in maintenance of
these types of amenities. He stated that he should have removed the recreational designation
from the parcels at that time, before it went to record, but his lack of experience had
prevented him from doing so. Dr. Hurt explained that discussions with homeowners have
shown him that most are not interested in the parcels being developed into recreational areas,
and offers to give some common area to the homeowners' association, as a compromise, have
not been well received. He stated that he felt that he has "kept good faith with the majority
5Y
7-26-94 6
of the people he sold to when he attempts to develop the property in the same fashion as the
adjoining lots," i.e. same size lots, same building restrictions. He stated that the property in
question presently carries no restrictions and "no one has any rights in it" and it is presently
used only as a place for dumping leaves.
Mr. Dotson asked how long sewer had been available to the property. Dr. Hurt explained that
it had been available for "several years." He confirmed that when sewer had become
available, he had obtained a building permit, which the County had then "taken away,
illegally." He stated he had been reluctant to go to court because he did not feel he should
have to spend a lot of money to straighten this out.
Mr. Dotson asked about the status of the other recreation area. Dr. Hurt explained that the
two areas were similar, i.e. "low from the road, both require a fair amount of improvements."
He stated that the other area would be more difficult to develop because of the topography --it
is low, has a creek, and some unstable soils. He stated he would be happy to give that area
to the homeowners, but he has found no one who wants it.
It was Mr. Blue's understanding that Dr. Hurt had always known that the lake parcel would be
developed at some future time. (Dr. Hurt commented: "When I divided it up I thought I was
going to sell those the next year, but then when I perked them, I couldn't do it ... so I put the
lake in just to make the area attractive.") Mr. Blue continued: "But you are not making the
same argument (for this parcel). You weren't actually thinking that you were going to use
this recreational area for future development when sewer came in, as you're proposing to do
now. Am I correct in assuming that?" (Dr. Hurt responded: "You're correct. I did not
expect to build houses, but I did not expect for it not to be used. I thought it was a
possibility for some type of commercial development,... something in the way of maybe a
club --a Fry Springs -type club --with a pool and tennis courts.") Mr. Blue: "So you were
expecting it to be used for recreational facility at some time?" (Dr. Hurt: "At that time, I
did." He again explained the sequence of events at the time Mr. Gilmer had advised him not
to create a neighborhood club.) Dr. Hurt confirmed that that sequence of events had taken
place prior to the recordation of the plat. He added: "If I had been smart, I would have
simply scratched that out." Mr. Blue asked: "Was it your intention, at the time the plat was
recorded, with the term 'recreational area' on it, that at some time in the future that it would
be used for recreation, or was it just a matter that you forgot to take that recreational off?"
Dr. Hurt responded: "I can't say that I had any great plans for it. Mr. Gilmer had talked me
out of my plans, which were, basically, to give it to the owners. I didn't think about it; it was
just one of those things that I didn't give mature thought to."
Mr. Blue asked if it was Mr. Huffman's understanding, when he drew the plat with the
notation on it, that this parcel would be a recreational area. Dr. Hurt responded: "I just took
the plat to Mr. Gilmer and said 'Here it is.'" Mr. Blue understood: "It already had
'recreational area' on it." Dr. Hurt responded affirmatively. Dr. Hurt added: "When Aubrey
put (the notation) on there, I thought I would going to put it into the homeowners' association
and they were going to accept it. I just never did take it off. I didn't think it would make
5_6
7-26-94 7
any difference because I had excluded it from any sort of restrictions and at that time there
was no zoning and I thought, 'Gee, I've got the right to do whatever I want and who would
want that old rough, ugly land?"'
Mr. Nitchmann asked Dr. Hurt if a majority of the Northfields' homeowners have ever
approached him with an offer to purchase this land. Dr. Hurt responded: "No. I have offered
to give them some of that and nobody wants it and there are people who are opposed to the
association taking it." Dr. Hurt added that he has never been able to get the president of the
homeowners' association to call a meeting to discuss this issue.
Mr. Payne called attention to a letter from Ms. Linda Franklin, dated July 20, 1994, from
which he read the following portion: "Dr. Hurt proposed, in January, 1994, to create an
'improved' recreation area complete with such noise and trouble generators as swings,
barbecue pits and trails, which we feel would inevitably bring dirt bikes, fires, accidents, etc.,
especially from outside the neighborhood. As I have written before, everyone in Northfields
who wishes to barbecue outdoors already has a pit or grill in their own backyards and the
same goes for children's play swings. As for cleared paths, I can't see this being an amenity
because whatever lives there naturally now would have to be removed or sanitized in order to
create the recreation area."
Public comment was invited.
The following members of the Northfields neighborhood addressed the Commission and
expressed strong opposition to the proposal: Ms. Alice Feehley-Maus, President of the
Homeowners' Association; Mr. Wayne Elliott, owner of the property across from the subject
property; Ms. Linda C. Franklin; and Mr. David Maus. (Approximately 14 others in
attendance at the meeting expressed their opposition to the proposal and their agreement with
the comments made by their neighbors by a show of hands.) Their reasons for opposition are
summarized below:
--For 35 years this lot has been designated as recreational and has been used as a lure
for sales of property. Purchasers, over the years, have based decisions to buy in Northfields
partially on the representation of these properties as recreational areas.
--That the County would allow a developer to make this type of change, for personal
profit, is terrifying.
--The property is not an eyesore; it is a natural wooded area which should remain
undisturbed.
--The majority of the Northfields homeowners are opposed to the proposal. Several
have written letters expressing their opposition.
--This is more than a re -subdivision; it is actually a change in use.
--The curvature of the roads would make entrances for these lots dangerous.
--"Negative reciprocal easements" between Dr. Hurt and other property owners result
in restrictions on this property which limit its use.
--The term "park" on a part of the plat implies that there was a public dedication
intended.
57�
7-26-94
--Adding additional homes in Northfields "oversaturates the availability of housing in
that area and depreciates the values of homes."
--Part of this property has been used as a dump site for fill material and, therefore, the
stability of the soil is questionable for building sites.
The applicant was allowed closing statements.
Mr. Payne again addressed the Commission. He noted that Mr. Huffman had been one of the
original purchasers in Northfields and Mr. Huffman (who had had to leave the meeting) had
wanted the Commission to know that he had not been "lured" by the promise of a
recreational area. The applicant can document other original purchasers who felt the same
way. Mr. Payne again stressed that the homeowners have the right, at any time, to raise
these issues in a proper forum "that can give them relief they want," but this is not the
proper place. He also addressed the concept of a "park." He pointed out that he had, in his
opening comments, referred to a "park," but he had not referred to a "public" park. He
explained that in Virginia, the law requires that dedication be accepted, and, in this case, there
is "no dedication here, there is no evidence of dedication, there is certainly no evidence of
acceptance." He again pointed out that the issue before the Commission is "to review the
rights of this developer under the Subdivision Ordinance" and it was his opinion that action to
deny the subdivision would be a violation of the applicant's rights.
The public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Trank the following questions:
(I) Does the Commission have to state a reason for denial of this subdivision, or any
subdivision? Mr. Trank's answer: "I believe the answer is yes. Under 15.1-475, your
reasons for denial or disapproval must identify any deficiencies in the plat and those
deficiencies have to be by reference to those specific parts of the Subdivision Ordinance
which you feel have been violated. That is why I believe that denial is not appropriate here,
based upon staffs recommendation. You've got to cite some specific grounds, otherwise you
would be (arbitrary and capricious)."
(2) "If that is the case, is our consideration of the note on the plat promising a
recreational area to lot owners, a legal and valid reason for us, this Planning Commission, to
use for denial?" Referring to condition I (a), Mr. Trank answered: "I think it is both
appropriate and necessary to include the condition as a prerequisite to approval and to yield to
the Board of Supervisors on this issue. 15.1-482 is clear, and there is both case law and the
Attorney General's Office has issued opinions on the mandatory nature of that part of the
Virginia Code, which requires that the vacation procedures be observed and that requires
approval by the governing body --by the Board of Supervisors. I don't think it is appropriate
for the Planning Commission to make a determination on the merits of the vacation issue.
Mr. Payne has argued that the rights of private parties should not be litigated before this
Body. I would agree with that. I would also add that the issue of vacation is also not
properly before this Commission except in a procedural posture pursuant to staffs
recommendation. That issue has to be looked at; if it is going to be looked at all, by the
41
7-26-94
Board of Supervisors. Denial of the application, for reasons related to merits of the vacation
issue, might improve the applicant's posture with respect to an appeal. However, I must
emphasize the importance of allowing the Board of Supervisors which has the authority,
statutorily, to make determinations relating to vacation, and has been heard on this issue once
before, and it is up to the Board to decide whether or not it wants to revisit this issue. This
is not the time or the place to make a determination on the merits of the vacation."
Mr. Blue concluded: "Because of that, I think that condition 1(a) is inappropriate. We've got
the cart before the horse. The Board of Supervisors ought to make the decision as to whether
they want to vacate that statement before they ask us to make an approval. They are, in
effect, asking us to take the responsibility of condition 1(a), of saying that this thing has to be
vacated. I think that is completely wrong."
Ms. Huckle stated she had initially felt that "this was not properly before us," but after
hearing Mr. Trank's comments, she had a better understanding of the situation. She expressed
support for the staff report and favored recommending approval subject to staffs conditions.
Mr. Blue asked what would happen if the Commission were to approve the proposal without
condition 1(a). He asked if the Board of Supervisors would also hear the request. Mr. Trank
responded: "If you eliminate the vacation issue entirely, (and vote to approve the request
with the other conditions)15.1-482 still applies and it is our position that the Board of
Supervisors would still have to, if it is going to, make a decision as to whether or not to
approve vacation." Mr. Nitchmann commented: "It appears either way they are going to
make the decision --whether we leave it in there or take it out."
Mr. Blue asked how condition I(a) had become a condition, i.e. "was it a directive --either
formal or informal --from the Board of Supervisors or their staff, or was it something that you
as the planning staff felt was appropriate." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We consulted with the
County Attorney. It was not a directive from the Board. There is not anything, actually, as
far as I know, submitted to the Board regarding the vacation of this recreation area
designation."
Mr. Blue pointed out: "And normally a subdivision would not go to the Board." Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "Except on appeal." He added: "This was an application for
subdivision."
Mr. Blue asked: "If we vote to approve without that condition, will it go to the Board
anyway, or will somebody have to call it up to the Board?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It
would have to be appealed by the appropriate entities as identified in the Subdivision
Ordinance, which includes the Board of Supervisors and adjacent owners."
Mr. Blue concluded: "So it would definitely go to the Board, anyway." Mr. Cilimberg could
not confirm the accuracy of this statement.
�a �
7-26-94 10
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the Northields Recreation Area Preliminary Plat, SUB-94-
06-be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, except that condition 1(a)
be deleted.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion "for the sake of being able to discuss it."
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Blue to explain why he wished to delete condition 1(a).
Mr. Blue explained: "Because I think it is the Board of Supervisors and the Court's decision
to decide on the vacation issue. If I were allowed to vote my conscience on this I would vote
to deny it, because I think the recreational area was promised those property owners, but I'm
not allowed to do that."
Mr. Dotson asked if Mr. Blue would consider an amended 1(a), such as "Board of
Supervisors vacation of the term "recreation area" OR make a determination that no
determination is necessary." He felt this was not "telling the Board to vacate the term, but
rather we are telling them to deal with it."
Mr. Blue felt his motion would do that indirectly because he felt certain either the applicant
or the neighbors would appeal the action. He stated he had not yet decided whether he could
support an approval with condition 1(a) included.
Mr. Dotson stated he would like to keep the condition because "it would make certain it
would go to the Board." Ms. Huckle agreed.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed the feeling that if he had purchased property in Northfields and the
recorded plat had designated this property as recreation area, he would "be very disappointed
if 10 years later someone tried to remove" that designation. Though he understood that the
developer may, because of lack of experience, have made a mistake 35 years ago, he felt
"that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes." He indicated he could support Mr.
Blue's motion because he was certain that it would be brought up before the Board. (NOTE:
Mr. Nitchmann did not support the motion when the roll was called.)
Ms. Huckle invited final comment from Mr. Trank. Mr. Trank stated: "My only comment is
that the consensus of the Commission appears to be that the Board of Supervisors ought to
hear this issue and the staff recommendation is the best way to accomplish that. Because the
vacation issue must be decided, if its going to be, by the Board, then the best way to
guarantee that is to accept staffs recommendation."
Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Blue would consider changing his motion. Mr. Blue declined.
60
7-26-94
11
The previously stated motion for approval [with the deletion of 1(a)] failed (1:4) with
Commissioner Blue casting the only supporting vote.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SUB-94-053 for Northfields
Recreation Area Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. Board of Supervisors vacation of the term "recreation area" on existing plat as
shown in Deed Book 376, Page 187 on Sheet 2 of 2 of Subdivision Plat, Part of Section Six
"Northfields" dated May, 1961, by B. Aubrey Huffman.
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance Iocations.
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Grading and Drainage plans and
calculations.
d. Department of Engineering approval of Stormwater Detention plans and
calculations.
e. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan.
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of easements for two sewer laterals
which run from the sewer main on -site to properties on the other side of Carrsbrook Drive.
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of a private waterline easement for
the water service to lot two (2) which must come from a meter set on either Huntington Road
or Northfields Road.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson wanted the record to be clear that his vote meant that he was saying "yes, were
this to be allowed, it would meet the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance,
but I encourage the Board to say 'no' to the request to vacate."
The motion for approval passed (4:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote.
Mr. Payne asked that the record show that the applicant "objects to the action of the
Commission, (and) we are not accepting that condition."
P-94-21 Reid or Jessica W. Nagle - Petition to permit the construction of a stream crossing
in the floodplain of an unnamed tributary of the Doyles River [Section 30.3.5.2.1]. Property,
described as Tax Map 15, parcel 19, is located on the east side of Rt. 810/Rt. 673 intersection
in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth
area (Rural Area 1).
61
7-26-94
12
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Driver. He explained that the Nagles were
having problems with their existing access during heavy rains. He explained that there are
"serious reservations" about making improvements to the existing driveway because the
construction of a berm would result in a considerable amount of backwater. The request to
construct a bridge across the Doyles River would allow access to the property and would not
be subject to repeated flooding, as is the current driveway. The bridge will be approximately
6 feet above the streambed, and will be the approximate elevation of Rt. 810.
Mr. Dotson asked if the width of the bridge would be such that it could handle additional
vehicle traffic in the event of a future subdivision of the property. Mr. Driver responded
affirmatively.
Ms. Huckle asked if the bridge would be able to accommodate fire trucks. Mr. Driver
responded that he was certain the bridge would be able to accommodate a cement truck
(which is heavier than a fire truck).
Mr. Blue asked if there were plans to "give up" the other access. Mr. Driver thought it
would be a good idea to leave it as a secondary access.
Ms. Huckle asked if there should be an additional condition addressing the strength of the
bridge. Mr. Blue pointed out that condition No. 2--Department of Engineering approval of
bridge design. --should address that concern. Mr. Keeler added: "For your information, that
type of condition was discussed once before on a bridge, and the Board chose not to impose
that condition and simply left it up to the property owner."
Mr. Dotson called attention to a "straight edge type of driveway" shown on one of the maps.
He hoped that when it is actually laid out it will be made to "fit in a little better."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that SP-94-21 for Reid or Jessica
W. Nagle, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval of entrance onto Route
810.
2. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design.
3. Department of Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations.
4. Department of Engineering approval of Grading Plan.
S. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan if greater than 10,000
square feet of area is disturbed.
612
7-26-94
13
6. Water Resource Manager approval of Water Quality Impact Assessment.
7. Proof of compliance with applicable Federal and State permitting requirements
regulating activities in perennial streams.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-05 Hillcrest Land Trust - Petition to rezone 14.56 acres from R-1 Residential to PD-
SC, Planned Development -Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 2
(part of) is located on the east side of Rt. 742 approximately 300 feet south of the intersection
of Mill Creek Drive in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High
Density Residential (10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 4.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff supported the request, subject to the acceptance of
agreements with the applicant, and also recommended approval of a modification of Section
25.3 in PIanned Development Regulations (related to area requirements for the creation of
PD-SC districts), and a modification to Section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (related to
grading activity within the buffer zone).
There was a brief discussion about the road connections shown to the Rt. 742/Rt. 20
connector road. Mr. Fritz explained that they are shown in the proper location, but the direct
access to Avon Street is still under review by VDOT and if the final design cannot be
approved, a connection will not be permitted by VDOT. He noted that a temporary
connection is shown at the front of the property, which will be closed at such time as the
connector is completed. Ms. Huckle asked if the developer will be building the part of the
connector which is on this property. Mr. Fritz explained: "He is going to build a road within
that alignment sufficient (for this development) and dedicate the right of way for the ultimate
construction." Mr. Keeler added that it was his understanding that the developer will be
"building 2 lanes on a 4 lane divided section." Mr. Blue understood that the developer will
"build what they need but to the standards that can used at the time the connector road is
built." Staff acknowledged the accuracy of Mr. BIue's statement.
Regarding the Comprehensive Plan issue, the staff report explained: "During the review of
the Comprehensive Plan amendment which deleted the commercial designation in Mill Creek,
staff noted and the Board of Supervisors agreed that there was a need to locate replacement
commercial acreage in the southern growth area. While no plan amendment has been
processed, this area appears to be a suitable location for commercial use. Staff is able to
support this request. Should the Board of Supervisors approve this request, staff will
incorporate this area into the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan as part of the
review of the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Nitchmann felt one of the prohibited uses (as listed in the staff report) should be
clarified-- "Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop" (22.2.1.b.22). He felt this
could be interpreted to mean an automobile, truck repair shop was prohibited, but a body shop
63
7-26-94 14
was not. Mr. Keeler explained this use is exactly as it is listed in the Ordinance. Mr.
Nitchmann felt the use of the words "prohibited" and "excluded" resulted in a double
negative. Mr. Trank agreed this was a point which should be clarified. Mr. Cilimberg felt it
could be clarified by changing the beginning statement to read: "The following sections shall
be prohibited." (Rather than "The following uses....") Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that body
shop is not even an allowed use by right --it is not listed in the Ordinance.
Mr. Dotson asked if more parking was being provided than required. Mr. Fritz responded
affirmatively. Mr. Dotson asked if the extra parking was necessitating the need for the
modifications. Mr. Fritz replied: "To a degree but not necessarily." He explained that in
some cases, the modifications are needed because of the building size and the topography.
Mr. Dotson stated he would raise this issue again under new business, i.e. the fact that this
particular modification is being requested quite often.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Denise LaCour. She explained the proposed
development in some detail. In response to Mr. Blue's earlier question about the retaining
wall, she said that "we will be sloping down so hopefully the retaining wall will be
diminished or eliminated." Regarding the question about the body shop, she stated there
were no plans for that type of use. Other comments included the following:
--Not all 11.9 acres will be developed immediately. Estimated build -out time is 6-15
years.
--This is a conceptual site plan as uses are not known at ttus time. Anticipated uses
include retail, professional offices, day care, small grocery store, drug store, video rental, dry
cleaners, pizza delivery, bank, and convenience store.
--Public water is already available and public sewer is available to the rear.
--There are no critical slopes on the site.
--An increase in traffic is not anticipated because it is hoped that this development will
"capture" traffic which is already there. If developed as presently zoned, there could be a
minimum of 495 new vehicle trips on the road. The development will relieve some of the
traffic congestion in other parts of the county.
--Many of the buildings will be only one floor.
--The developers agree with the ARB's requirement for a 35 foot vegetative buffer
along Rt. 742 and along the private access road and also with the recommendation for tree
plantings in the parking lot.
--There is presently no commercially zoned property in all of Neighborhood 4 and
there is a real need for these types of uses to serve the residents of Neighborhood 4.
--This will increase the County tax base without burdening the school system. It will
also create 80 - 150 new jobs.
The following residents of Mill Creek addressed the Commission and expressed support for
the proposal: Mr. Dan Vest; Ms. Marcella Jost, Ms. Mary Harmon; Mr. Dave Shaw. Mr.
Shaw is a member of the Board of Directors of Mill Creek Homes. He stated that the
majority of those who had attended a neighborhood meeting on July 25th had expressed
support for the development. IIe asked how people could get involved in the planning
6�L
7-26-94 15
process for the development. Mr. Fritz offered to provide Mr. Shaw with the names of
persons he could contact and also to explain to him the site plan and ARB review process.
(Mr. Nitchmann (representative for this district) advised Mr. Shaw to contact him if he felt
there were any problems.) Mr. Shaw pointed out that this area of the County has inadequate
fire protection service at this time.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to distinguish this site from others on which this same type of request
might be made. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "In this particular case, where we have
commercial designation in the plan and the Board decided to remove it and directed us
specifically, as part of their action, to look at new commercial sites along that corridor, and
this was one of the sites that was part of that initial look. We consider this to be a very
extenuating circumstance, that, actually, the application coming to you was, in part, a
follow-up to that directive of the Board and that we based our analysis on that. If there had
not been that directive of the Board, I think it would have been a different circumstance for
us, because while it might have been a very good site, the Board may not have wanted to
jump ahead of itself. ... We don't have another action by the Board, in the recent past, like
that --where we actually had a removal of a land use in the Plan and were directed to look at
new land use of the same type for the same area."
Mr. Nitchmann felt this had been a sensible direction to staff given the growth that is
occurring in this area and the need for commercial and retail services to serve the citizens of
the area. He concluded: "I'm pleased to see this in front of us; I think it's here for all the
right reasons."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that ZMA-94-05 for Hillcrest Land
Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the
agreements listed in the staff report dated July 26, 1994, and that modifications of Section
25.3 and 21.7.3 be granted.
There was a brief discussion of the difference between "proffers" and "agreements." Mr.
Keeler explained: "A proffer is one sided --it's the applicant. In this case, both the applicant
and the County have entered into an agreement as to how the property is to be developed,
which includes these modifications. These are things that the County is willing to provide to
the applicant in order for the applicant to proceed with the development."
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
rm
7-26-94
16
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission of the date of the joint meeting with the Board of
Supervisors --Wednesday, August 24th, 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Dotson again raised the issue of the frequent requests for modifications in the setback
requirements. He asked if staff could look at the proposals over the last 6 months and
determine how often these modifications are being requested and the circumstances under
which they are requested. This would help the Commission decide if this part of the
Ordinance should be "revisited."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. until Thursday, July 28,
1994 at 3:00 p.m. in Warrenton for a joint meeting with Fauquier County Planning
Commission and field trip to Loudoun County and Montgomery County, Maryland on Friday,
July 29th. At that time, the Commission will then adjourn until Tuesday, August 2, 1994 at
9:00 a.m. at the UREF North Fork Business Park for a site visit.
MI