Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 16 1994 PC Minutes8-16-94 AUGUST 16, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 16, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms_ Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr, David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilly, Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of August 2, 1994 were approved as amended. [NOTE: Though Mr. Dotson questioned the accuracy of a statement on page 11 of the minutes -- "Developers are responsible to provide these utilitites"-- other Commissioners and Mr. Davis confirmed the statement was accurate as it was presented.] Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken at the August 10th Board of Supervisors Meeting. . ZMA-94-04 F rest Lakes Associates - Petition to rezone 12.08 acres from R-1 Residential and R-4 Residential to R-10 Residential (9.73 acres) and C-1, Commercial (2.35 acres) (proffered). Property, described as Tax Map 46B3, Parcel 1 and Tax Map 32, parcel 29F is located on the south side of Rt. 649 at the northern end of Timberwood Parkway in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in the Community of HoIlymead and is recommended for Low Density Residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre), High Density Residential (10.01 -34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Service. Deferred from the July 26, 1994 Commission Meeting. Mr, Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Fritz questions about a piece of property in this area (adjacent to Forest Lakes, but not adjacent to the subject property) which was rezoned approximately one year ago. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the property (which he referred to as the Maubry rezoning) had been rezoned with plans to develop it as "attached family housing." Both properties are recommended for low and high density residential and neighborhood service in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Blue expressed concern about being asked to approve this request without a conceptual plan. sr 8-16-94 Ms. Huckle expressed a lack of understanding of proffer No. Z which provides for access to the service area from Profit Road, but "no through access" (except for emergency access). She felt that "if it is to be a neighborhood service area, it should be accessible to the neighborhood." Mr. Fritz explained: "The intent is that access be provided to both sides of this building. You will be able to get to whatever service is provided both from Rt. 649 and internally from the Forest Lakes development. The intent of the proffer is to prevent the road from being constructed where you could just shoot straight through this commercial area to access Rt.649, (to prevent it's being used as a cut -through.)" Mr. Slue questioned how it would be possible to prevent this unless the emergency access was going to be gated. 'Mr. Fritz pointed out that similar emergency accesses exist in Forest Lakes which are grassed roadways which do not appear to be roads. He stated there are other options for preventing usage of the emergency access, but nothing has been reviewed as yet. Mr. Fritz was confident this concern could be addressed. Referring to dedicated easements for future roadways, Ms. Huckle recalled a recent request where it became difficult to use such an easement because plantings, buildings, etc. have been built too close to the easement. She asked how that problem would be avoided in this case. Mr. Fritz explained that it would be difficult to address that issue now because roadway locations and designs are not yet definite. That concern will be addressed during subdivision review. Ms. Imhof stated she was not accustomed to seeing rezonings without a conceptual plan. She asked about minimum requirements for submittal of a rezoning. Mr. Fritz explained that this request exceeds the minimum because it includes proffers, which are not required. What is required is a completed application, a fee, a plat of the property, and verification of ownership. Also, staff, from the onset of the request, considers the issue of compatability with the Comprehensive Plan, though that is not a requirement either. Ms. Imhoff felt this was unfortunate because it results in "a lost opportunity for the applicant, early on, to visually describe their plans and it puts the public and the Commission on more notice." She felt this was something, "long term, which the County should consider- requiring a concept plan for major rezonings." She considered this to be an important rezoning. Mr. Fritz pointed out that the property discussed earlier in the meeting (to the west) had not been accompanied by a concept plan at the rezoning stage but proffers were offered which addressed important issues such as stream protection and access, and staff felt then, as now, that a plan would not have provided a significant amount of additional information. Mr. Blue recalled that the Commission had reviewed the subdivision plan for the property, and there had been a lot of public opposition_ The public, at that time, seemed not to be aware that the Comprehensive Plan recommended this area for growth and that the rezoning had already been approved. He felt it may have been a different situation if the rezoning had been accompanied by a concept plan. Ms. Imhoff expressed concerns about proffer No. 5 which limits the number of residential units to 65. She wondered why staff would be supportative of this proffer which she felt was 0 8-16-94 contrary to the Comp Plan's recommended residential densities. Mr. Fritz explained that staff did not necessarily endorse the proffer, "but by limiting the development to less than the theoretical maximum, it tends to reduce development pressures when the subdivision or site plan comes in to maximize development and requires waivers and modifications." Mr. Blue pointed out that the Comp Plan has already recommended this property for high density, and with this rezoning, "we are introducing a much higher density than is already there." He understood Ms. Imhoff s desire to utilize the growth areas fully in order to protect the rural areas. However, in this instance, he felt "the residents who are already there are opposed to even this lower density_" Ms. Imhoff agreed that was part of her concern, but she also wondered "did the Comp Plan densities mean anything and how much do we vary within that range?" She understood from some of staffs earlier statements that perhaps this property could not support the maximum densities, if waivers and modifications would be required to meet those maximums. Mr. Fritz felt the applicant was trying to make their intent known by offering that proffer. Changing the discussion to transportation issues, Mr. Dotson asked: "The T4 alignment (for the Meadow Creek Parkway) would be precluded by the development as envisioned....Is there provision for linking Forest Lakes to Profitt Road?" Mr. Fritz responded that he was only aware of a connection at Worth Crossing (which exists). Mr. Keeler offered some general information about the history of the idea of conceptual plans. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He explained that plans for this property had been put on hold several years ago because of the Meadow Creek Parkway question. After the consultants recommended that the alignment not continue through to Proffit Road, the rezoning process was reinitiated. Using a drawing which he was holding in his hands, Mr. Runkle explained the envisioned road plans. Additional comments and answers to Commission questions were as follows: --The 65 unit proffered result in approximately 6.5 units/acre. The type dwellings planned are 2 units/attached, sold separately. It is questionable whether 65 units will actually be achievable on the property. --The area planned for commercial is the only area which could be used for commercial development. (Mr. Fritz explained this is the only area on Rt. 649 which the Comp Plan recommends for commercial development.) It is believed that sight distance can be obtained for a commercial entrance at the "far western corner." (In the event that sight distance is not obtainable, Ms. Imhoff asked if the applicant would request a redesignation to residential for this commercial property. She wondered how much the commercial recommendation in the Comp Plan was influencing the applicant's plans.) Mr. Runkle replied: "I would not object to doing it all residential." --In response to Ms. Huckle's question as to why the applicant is proposing a lower density than called for in the Comp Plan, Mr. Runkle replied: "Because I can't put apartments on that and that is the only thing I could do to get the higher density. There's not a market demand for it. According to market demand, the highest density I could get 1s to 9f 8-16-94 sell townhouses or attached duplex -type units." (Mr. Dotson asked: "You're saying, on this particular site, there might be other areas where you could provide apartments.") Mr. Runkle responded by calling attention to apartments which are being built on Rio Road, but concluded: "There's just not that much absorption in the market for apartments. If the (Commission's) action was to say this has to be used for apartments, it just wouldn't be used." Ms. Huckle read the following statement (which had been attributed to Mr. Runkle) from minutes of the Albemarle County Housing Committee meeting (date not mentioned): "It was commented that the Board of Supervisors makes land use decisions which limit density although the properties are located in areas designated for growth." She asked Mr. Runkle to comment. Mr. Runkle used Glenmore as an example in his response to Ms. Huckle and said he thought "there are political reasons for that." Though he was not certain the statement read by Ms. Huckle had been his, he stated he did agree with it. Ms. Imhoff felt it would be helpful to "have some feedback on the realisticness of some of our densities --(for example) is medium density really 8-10 dwelling units/acre or is it something else?" Mr. Runkle commented: "Based on information Pve heard, l think plans relative to densities in designated growth areas now are being based on densities that are being achieved. If you look at most of the big developments which have been occurring over the last several years, the average is about 2 units/acre...and that is the type of product that people want...." Mr. Runkle concluded his statements by saying that he had been in contact with Mr. Frank Jones, the adjacent property owner to the west, who would like to have a fence installed along his property line. Mr. Runkle indicated that the applicant would be agreeable to providing a fence and offered to make an additional proffer to that effect. He asked only that the type of fence be more clearly defined. Public commented was invited. Mr. Frank Jones, adjacent property owner to the west, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jones' son, Keith Jones, who resides on the property with his father, also addressed the Commission. The eider Mr. Jones strongly objected to the request for the commercial property which he said would be "20 feet from his front door." He expressed concerns about his increased real estate taxes which have been the result of the surrounding development. He felt he was entitled to a fence along his property line. He stated that had spoken with both Mr. Runkle and Mr. Craig (owner of the property adjacent to him to the east) and they have both agreed to provide a fence. He objected to the fact that detailed plans are not available early in the rezoning process. Mr. Jones appeared not to have been aware of the fact that this area had been designated for growth in the Comprehensive Plan several years ago. (Mr. Keeler explained the public notice process and advertising procedure which had been followed at the time this area was designated for growth in the Comp PIan. He did not see how the County could have done any more to make the public aware.) 8-16-94 Mr. Dotson asked staff if there were other like -designated adjacent properties available which could make this into a larger neighborhood service area. Mr. Fritz explained that the Comp Plan is conceptual in nature and he was of the impression that the area proposed for this rezoning is all that is envisioned for neighborhood. (Any other land would be that which belongs to Mr. Jones.) (Mr. Benish later responded to the question and stated that there have been requests from property owners in this general area for commercial designation which could replace this area. Some of those areas are along Worth Crossing, along the back of the Food Lion Shopping Center.] Mr. Blue wondered if this commercial area is really needed, given the close proximity of the commercial area which already exists at the intersection of Rt. 29 and Rt. 649. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the Commission has the ability to determine that this commercial area is not needed and make that recommendation to the Board. He pointed out that the applicant has said "he really doesn't care and he would just as soon put more homes in there, which we could use, and the adjacent property owner has stated he doesn't want commercial." Mr. Jenkins indicated he would support such an action by the Commission. Mr. Dotson asked: "Was it likely that the commercial was put there because it was presumed that there would be a road connecting to Proffit Road and that would be an intersection?" Mr. Benish agreed that that was part of the rationale at that time and it was possibly conceived that such a road could be a connector to the Meadow Creek Parkway as it was conceived in the early 80's. Mr. Benish conceded that the circumstances may have changed and "the Plan is intended to be flexible to reflect the type of changes Mr. Nitchmann has mentioned." Mr. Dotson pointed out that some residential property had been lost recently with the approval of the Health Services Foundation. Public commented continued. Ms. Phylis McKee, property owner directly across from the proposed commercial area on Rt. 649, addressed the Commission and strongly objected to the commercial designation. She felt her home would be "ruined" by a commercial development. She called attention to the traffic situation on Rt. 649 and to frequent accidents which occur. She expressed no objection to residential development of the property. Mr. Keith Jones addressed the Commission and expressed the same concerns his father had previously. He also expressed concerns about the increasingly dangerous traffic situation on Rt. 649. Regarding the fencing question, it was determined that the Jones property is bordered on both the west and the south by Forest Lakes property. (Mr_ Runkle clarified that Mr. Jones' property is bordered on only the west side by the property which is the subject of this rezoning) 93 8-16-94 6 There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff felt there appeared to be an agreement that the possibility of rezoning the entire 12.08 acres to Residential, (deleting the commercial request) was worthy of consideration. She stated that her idea of neighborhood commercial is "something that has more than one road connecting and is more centralized." She felt the only other issue to be worked out was that of the fence. She wondered if the item should be deferred to allow time for the proffers to be reexamined. (Mr. Keeler explained that a deferral was up to the Commission. He pointed out, however, that the applicant could make any changes to the proffers, in writing, before the Board hearing, which would satisfy the requirements of the Code.) Ms. Huckle addressed Mr. Runkle: "I think you agreed that you did not care about the commercial and you were willing to do the fence." Mr. Runkle responded: "That's correct." Regarding the proffer for 65 units, he explained that had been based on 2.35 acres being used for commercial, and if those 2.35 acres were going to be changed to residential, he expressed the desire to change that proffer to 75 units. Mr. Keeler stated that the proffer could be dropped altogether. Mr. Runkle responded: "I would be happy to drop it. My expectation is that it is going to be about 50 or 60 units. It doesn't make any difference to me --I'll go to 75 or drop it altogether." Mr. BIue asked if the applicant would agree that it was better that the Commission go ahead and take action with the understanding that the proffers would be refined before the Board hearing. Mr. Runkle responded: "Yes, I would prefer that you take action tonight." Mr. Runkle explained it would be his intent to delete proffer No. 2 (related to the 2.35 neighborhood service area) and proffer No. 5 (related to the number of units), and to add a proffer for the fence along the western property line (adjacent to Mr. Jones). It was agreed that the fence would be "a chain -link fence or equivalent." Mr. Keeler explained the process: "The applicant would submit an application withdrawing the request for the commercial aspect and requesting that it all be designated R-10, and between now and September 21 st (Board date), there is plenty of time to work out the details of the fence with the adjoining property owner." Mr. Keeler stated he did not feel the county had any interest in the material design of the fence. Mr. Blue expressed the hope that the adjacent property owners would be able to see the proposed changes prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Keeler explained that staff would want to have the changes at least 2 weeks prior to the Board hearing so as to have time for review with the County Attorney and time to get the material into the Board's packet. Mr. Keeler felt there was sufficient time for all this to be accomplished. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-94-04 for Forest Lakes Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, rezoning 12.08 acres from R-1 Residential and R4 Residential to R-10 Residential, with the acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 3, and 4 and the additional proffer offered by the applicant to provide a type 914 8-16-94 fence on the western property line acceptable to both the developer and the adjacent property owner. Mr, Davis clarified that "prior to the Board taking action, these proffers need to be reduced in writing and the applicant needs to consent that the proffers apply even though all of it is being rezoned residential rather than part to commercial. ... He needs to consent that he would agree to still proffer this even though part of it is not zoned to commercial and it needs to be done prior to the Board meeting. If you're comfortable with what he has stated, you can make your recommendation based on his statements and condition the recommendation on the fact that that would be committed to writing prior to the Board meeting." Mr. Nitchmann confirmed that was the intent of his motion. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff stated that though she was supportive of the rezoning, she was "not comfortable with this process (because) (she) was much more used to a process where the applicant hands in revised written proffers, the citizens get a chance to look at them (and) everyone knows what they are voting on." The motion for approval passed unanimously. ZTA 94-5-5 Fees - Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0 Fees, to allow fee reduction for uses that may be subject to multiple fees, minor expansions to non- conforming uses and the like, and family divisions that necessitate a special use permit. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained how the amendment will effect the fee process and gave examples as to when the reductions will be applicable. He concluded his presentation: "In summary, it's non -conforming uses where the expansion is minor and doesn't require a full review under 31.2.4.1, under all the criteria for issuance of a special use permit; its for an additional development right, or development rights, for family members where the by -right development rights have been exhausted in the rural areas district; it`s for cases where we want to encourage people to submit information which is supportative of their rezoning or special use permit, such as a preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat; and, finally, unique cases where the Ordinance itself operates to require multiple special use permits." He clarified this last instance further: "This doesn't cover a situation where a person wants to rezone the property and obtain a special permit because we review those separately and that would still be two fees, but where it is one use and the Ordinance requires, by its own operation, not the request of the applicant, several permits." qs­ 8-16-94 Mr. Blue asked if this ordinance would have any retroactive status. Mr. Keeler responded: "No. This would become effective upon adoption and would begin with the next sequence of applications following that." (Mr. Davis added: "It could have a retroactive date attached to the Ordinance to pick up the Mt. Carmel application, if they chose to do that. He pointed out that it was the Mt. Cartel application which initiated "this chain" and because that request is yet unresolved, there may be a desire by the Board to make it retroactive at least to the Mt. Carmel application.) Mr. Keeler explained why the Board had rejected the original amendment which would have allowed the Board to reduce fees in particular cases based on certain criteria. Because of the difficulty in developing guidelines which would be required for making case -by -case determinations, the Board had decided that "they wanted to reduce fees by situational issues rather than on a case -by -case basis." He noted., however, that the Board may still want to adopt the original language "because of something which they haven't foreseen here, some really peculiar situation." Public comment was invited. Mr. Kevin Cox addressed the Commission. He expressed support for the fee reduction for family divisions, though he felt that $175 was still too much. (Mr_ Cox asked if the reduction meant that the County would be "subsidizing" the cost of family division applications (in the amount of $725). Mr. Blue responded that he assumed that would be the case because it has been determined that the cost to the County for processing these requests is $900. Mr. Cox also expressed an interest in those special permits required for minor revisions to non- conforming uses. He felt this would mostly impact churches and he supported the change in fee from $780 to $85, which he felt would benefit the public as a whole. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZTA-94-5, to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0 Fees, to allow fee reduction for uses that may be subject to multiple fees, minor expansions to non -conforming uses and the like, and family divisions that necessitate a special use permit, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as submitted by staff and shown in the attachment to Mr. Keeler's Memorandum to the Commission dated August 16, 1994. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Dotson asked that consideration be given to changing the term "Fee Reduction" (the heading for Section 35.1) to "Fees for Multiple Applications." Mr. Davis questioned whether this would cover all the sub -parts. Mr. Davis suggested that "Fee Adjustments" might be 9(� 8-16-94 more appropriate. it was decided that "Reduction" would be changed to "Adjustment." Ms. Irn.hoff and Mr. Jenkins agreed to include this change in their motion. The motion for approval passed unanimously. -------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS The Commission was reminded of a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to be held Wednesday, August 24th, 7:00 p.m. Mr. Jenkins agreed for replace Ms. Imhoff on the Interchange Committee. Mr. Benish introduced a new staff member, Mr. Ron Lilly, who will be working with both Planning and Community Development. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. with the announcement that it would reconvene immediately (for a very brief period) in the Conference Room of the Planning Office to view some maps. V. Wayne 'mberg, S re ?7-