HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 06 1994 PC Minutes12-6-94
DECEMBER 6, 1994
T
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday. December 6.
1994, Room 7„ County Office BuBding, Clarlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were, Ms: Babs Huck1-e; Chair; Mr. Tom Blue; Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchnlann Ms.
Katherine Imhoff; and Mr. Tern .Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. Ron Lilly, Senior Plalrner,
Mr. Ken .Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and
Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Cointiiissioners Dotson and Vaughan,
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
November 22, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
Z1VIA 94-15 Philip A. Sansone - Propgsal to rezone 7.87 acres from R-1 (1 dwelling unit per
acre) to R-10 (10 dwelling ;nuts pe€ acre); with proffer: The prep„rty; described as Tax Map
78, Parcel 53SI, is located off of State Route 20 and Garnett Center Drive, immediately north
of Wiltull Country Hollies, in the Rivanika Magisterial District. The site is recommended for
low density residential (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Deferred from the
November 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Lilly presented the staff` report. StafT recommended approval, subject to acceptance of
the applicant's proffer. Staff also recommended approval of private roads for the subdivision.
Referring to the fact that the cul-de-sac has two access gpints, Ms_ Hurkle recalled a previous
determination that "a cul-de-sac is not a cul-de-sac if it has two exits." Mr. Lilly explained
that an allowance is being Made, so that one of the "exits" can be continued as a street in the
event of future development on the adjoining property (presently occupied by tb.e Garnett Day
Treatment Center). There art'.- no plans to continue the Street at this time.
Mr. Lilly explained that in order to approve this as a proffered plan, the Commission must
first approve the request for private roads. He explained that the proposal does meet one of
the Ordinance provisions for private roads in that it only serves non single-family, detached
units and it is not a through street.
Anticipating the possibility of inere-tsed traffice, Ms Hackle asked if the private reads wmild
have to be upgradedat the time the Garnett property is d-vel4 nee. Mr-T .,11 jr pYplained that
the 501 foot r,'ght-Wf=way the ry l„ire^:ents far u public road. Hle
stated that there has been no traffic analysts done in terms of what traffic might be generated.
Mi. Lilly Confirined that the Plicate ttld& evuulcl be iilahlb-dilGd tbiough a piivaie
homeowners' maintenance agreement. Ms. Huckie asked if the maintenance agreement wouid
be written so as to insure that additional users (generated by the development of the adjoining
o36
12-6-94
property) would share in the costs of the maintenance. [This question was answered later in
th.e meeting.]
Mr. Lilly noted that some of the wording in the proffer ("...contingent upon approval of the
subdivision plat") was somewhat unclear as to the applicant's intent. [This issue was
addressed later in the meeting.]
Ms. Huckle asked if the proposed 30 feet of pavement was sufficient to permit parking. Mr.
Lilly responded affirmatively. lie also confirmed that the pavement width would be noted on
the plat.
Referring to Ms. Huckle's question about increased usage of the road when the adjoining
property develops, Mr. Blue asked if staff was confident that maintenance of the road would
not be a problem. Mr. Lilly explained that any development on the adjoining property would
require either a rezoning or an amendment to the proffers on the zoning for this property.
Any upgrade which might be needed could be addressed at that time. Mr. Lilly confirmed
that the adjoining property (Garnett property) is in the growth area,
Mr. Nitchmann asked who would be required to pay for the cost of upgrading the road to
state standards, if that should become necessary at some future time, Mr. Lilly explained it
would be up to the developer of the property being developed at that time to pay for whatever
upgrades may be necessary to serve that parcel. Mr. Nitchmatui wanted to be certain that the
owners of the lots currently under consideration would not have to pay for upgrading a road
to serve adjoining property. Mr Cilimberg explained: "No, that world not normally occur
unless there was some obligation carried with each of those lots as they are sold that they
would have to participate in an upgrade."
Mr. Lilly explained that the present proffer on the Gatnett Day Treaiment Center pl operty
limits its usage to that use only.
Ms. Imhoff noted that no sidewalks are shown on the plan. She asked if there is any County
policy for providing any type of pathways. She pointed out that there will probably be
pedestrian traffic from this development to the park across Rt. 20. Mr. Cilimberg explained
that there is no county policy to require pathways, though some developers have provided
them at their own initiative:. Ms_ Imhoff felt the County was "missing an opportunity, not
having a policy in place when these type of projects come along and the developer is missing
an opportunity to provide an amenity for these particular lots by not having some type of
sidewalk or pathway system."
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. lion Franco, representing the County Engineering office, to comment
on the slope of the driveways. Mr. Franco explained the maximum uphill grade will be 12%
and downhill will be 8%. The parking pad will have a maximum grade of 5%. Ms. linhoff
felt that 12% was steep. Mr. Franco stated that the County presently has no standard, though
there have been discussions about establishing a standard. For purposes of comparison, Mr.
-:23
12-6-94
Franco reported that some of the driveways in the Mill Creek development have driveway
grades of as much as 30%.
The applicant was represented by Tom Crystal. He offered to answer Commission questions.
Ms_ Huckle asked him the same questions site had posed to staff earlier in regards to the
future maintenance of the roads in the event of increased traffic caused by development of
adjoining properties. Mr. Crystal explained that whoever develops the adjoining property,
(whether this applicant or someone else) will be required to make whatever improvements
might be requited to serve that particular development. It was his understanding that owner's
in future developments would join in any road maintenance agreement with persons who
already live on the road.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis to address this question. Mr. Davis responded: "It is a
requirement of plat approval as well. There has to be a road maintenance agreement in effect
for plat approval." Ms. Huckle asked if that agreement would extend to the adjacent
properties, when they are developed: Mr. Davis responded, "No, not necessarily. That
would negotiated at the time those future plats are developed...by whomever owns tlae private
road." Mr. Davis did not know if this road would be owned by the individual lot owners or
if it would be held by an association. Mr. Crystal said it was his understanding there would
be a homeowners' association and the developer is a part of that association until the last lot
is sold.
Mr. Davis confirmed that, as County attorney, he would review the maintenance agreement.
That agreement must acknowledge that the county will not have any maintenance
responsibility for the future. He stated that the county's review of the agreement does not
"look at the equity of who pays for the maintenance." It just ensures that there is a
maintenance agreement." He explained. "But if that future property is ever incorporated,
they will have to reach an agreement with this property association, or the property owners, if
they maintain ownership of the private road. So the adjoining property will not be able to
force them to do anything without there being an agreement. At the time that that private
road is extended to serve the adjacent property, the adjacent properties will have to be a party
to the maintenance agreement at that time. So I don't think that the property owners will be
prejudiced in any way unless the original agreement is set up in a way that could leave them
vulnerable and I doubt that they would want to do that."
Mr. Jenkins asked how many acres of land would be able to use this road as right-of-way.
Mr. Crystal confirmed that the only other property is the Garnett Treatment Center property
which is a total of 15 acres and this property is also owned by the applicant. Dr. Hurt owns
the balance of the property and has other means of access.
Mr. Jenkins asked staff if the road will be built to state standards. Mr. Lilly responded
negatively but explained that the 50-foot right-of-way will allow it to be upgraded to state
standards if that is ever necessary
�3�
12-6-94
4
Mr. Crystal stated the average selling price of the homes will be slightly below $90,000.
Marilyn Gate, th6 applicant's engineer, offered to answer questions.
At this point, Mr. Davis pointed out the "ambiguity" in the proffer which Mr. Lilly had noted
in his staff report earlier. Mr. Davis explained that the applicant and the staff interpret the
proffer differently, i.e. "The applicant has proffered to follow this plan, subject to it being
approved; however, if it is not approved, it is their interpretation of the proffer that they could
then develop any other plan that they could get approved and not this particular plan." Mr.
Davis stated that if the Commission feels this plan is of particular significance, "then the
proffer needs to be amended in some fashion, that the developer is comfortable with, to say
that a plan, in general accord with this preliminary plat, would be developed, and
acknowledge that there is no requirement, based on this proffer, that the county approve any
plan that doesn't meet the subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements. As it is now, if for
some reason the developer withdrew this plan and it wasn't approved, they are not bound by
this particular sketch plan." Mr. Davis explained that the Commission can still act on the
request as long as there is a general lwderstanding "as to what you are dealing with," but
prior to the Board's meeting the proffer would have to be submitted in writing in order for the
Board to act.
Though Ms..Huckle asked Mr. Davis if he could suggest some wording, Mr. Davis declined,
saying that the developer needs to submit language that would meet the Commission's
expectation which is "that a plan very similar to this one would be the only plan that is
developed if it is rezoned."
Mr. Crystal commented: "We really agree on where we are going; it is just a matter of
getting the words property in the document and we would like to go forward and then work
on some language that will make it acceptable by the time it gets to the Board."
Mr. Davis felt there was no disagreement as to the intent of the proffer, but the wording was
ambiguous.
Mr. Blue asked if staff felt the private road would still be acceptable if the adjoining property
(the Garnett Center) develops at high density at some future time. Mr. Lilly stated staff had
attempted to provide for that possibility by insuring that a road could be constructed in the
right-of-way which would meet state standards. Mr. Franco confirmed that there is ample
right-of-way to make a state road possible. Mr. Franco also noted that the request for
mountainous terrain standards is for the upper cul-de-sac, with rolling standards for the lower
part of the road. He felt it would only be a matter of a difference of pavement width. Mr.
Franco also stated that it can be assured that the future extension of the road will be able to
take place without additional grading. He confirmed this will be done before final plat
approval is granted.
Public comment was invited.
'.2-3�
12-6-94 5
Mr. Dave Emmett, a resident of Franklin, addressed the Commission. He expressed concerns
about increased traffic, lighting, and buffering. He asked for a show of bands of those
present who had `concerns about the proposal. Three hands were raised in response to his
request. He asked for a review of the proffers of the original rezoning. He expressed
concern about pedestrian movement across Rt. 20 to the county park. (Mr. Blue explained
that his concerns would be addressed at the tinie of site plan approval. Mr. Ciliniberg briefly
described the history of the property, but explained that the original proffers do not apply to
this parcel of land.)
Ms. Huckle asked if staff was aware of any plans for a traffic light at the Park entrance on
Rt. 20. Mr. Lilly explained that the placement of a light would be determined by the point at
which traffic count meets VDOT's warrants for a light. He did not think this development
would cause the need for a light, though the development of .Dr. Hurt's property may.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue noted that though the increased density for this parcel is considerable, the net
density is actually lower when. combined with the parcel to the south. He stated that though
the people living there probably prefer the lower density, the Comprehensive Plan is trying to
increase density in the growth areas, of which this property is a part. He felt the question
was whether to follow the guidelines of the Comp Plan and allow this rezoning, or, deviate
from the Plan aid deny the request. He said his questions about the future development of
the Garnett Center property had been answered satisfactorily by staff. He hoped that staff.
will ensure, at the time of final approval, that if any offsite grading is necessary for the
development of the Garnett property, the easements will be planned for now.
Ms. Imhoff stated that though she supports the rezoning, in concept, she felt it was
unfortunate that the development did not offer any pathways, nor provide more detailed
information about buffering and night lighting. She hoped the Board would have the
opportunity to review some additional information. She also stated she is never comfortable
with a proffer that has not been agreed to by the applicant and the County's legal staff. She
stated she would support the request, with the reservations above noted.
Mr. Jenkins asked if this proposal complies with the Area III Study: Mr. Blue felt that it
does comply, though sidewalks were recommended all along Rt. 20, but not necessarily in
this particular development.
Mr. Blue asked if staff felt some of the issues raised by the Commission "could be addressed
with favorable results" before the time of site plan review. Mr. Lilly explained that this type
of development would not have to have a site plan.
Staff confirmed two actions were requested of the Commission: (1) To allow private roads
under Section 18-36(b)(4): and (2) To approve the rezoning, subject to the acceptance of the
12-6-94
applicant's proffer, with the understanding that it will be clarified to meet the intent of the
applicant and the Commission prior to Board hearing.
Mr. Blue asked if staff would be move comfortable with a deferral.
Given the applicant's confirmation that they are willing to amend the proffer as discussed, Mr.
Cilimberg did not think there would be any problem with the Commission taking action.
However, it is up to the Commission to decide whether some of the other issues raised need
to be addressed prior to Commission action.
Ms. Huckle stated she would not be opposed to a deferral if it would result in a "cleaner
proposal." She also wondered if there should be some statement included in the action
related to protection of the purchasers in relation to the road. maintenance. Mr. Davis
responded: "I don't think so, unless you want something other than the ordinary, it's not
necessary.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the request for private roads .for ZMA 94-15 be approved in
accordance with Section 18-36-4. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA 94-15 for Philip A. Sansone be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval with the understanding that the development will be based
upon a subdivision plat similar to the one presented to the Commission"on December 6, 1994
and that the proffer will be amended accordingly.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Mr. Jenkins again expressed a concern about the safety issue of pedestrian traffic; across Rt.
20 to reach Darden Towe Park. He hoped something could be done about this concern.
The motion for approval passed unanimously
WORK SESSION
Capital Improvements Program (1995-1996 through 1999-2000)
Mr. Baker briefly introduced the topic and invited Commission questions. Ms. Roxanne
White, Assistant to the Coutity Executive, was also available to answer questions.
Ms. Imhoff expressed agreement with statements made by members of the public at the
previous worksessiotn on the following two projects: Red Hill Outdoor Recreation
Improvements and the Rt. 29 North landscaping project. She agreed that there was a lack of
recreational opportunity in that part of the County. Though she understood that the 29 North
12-6-94
landscaping would be mostly a private eftort, she expressed the hope that the County could
contribute some "small token" seed money to help get the project started. On public
comments made hbout improvements to the Crozet pool, she pointed out that there is other
swimming potential in that area at other county facilities. She was in favor of reducing the
amount proposed for the Crozet pool, with some of those funds being switched to the Red
Hill project and the 29 North project.
Mr. Nitchmann, who had served on the ClP Technical Committee, thought the 29 North
landscaping project may have been given more consideration if the Committee had seen
some of the artist's renderings which were presented at the public hearing, He, too, expressed
the hope that the seed money could be found to help this project. He noted that this project
will be mostly privately funded and he felt this was the direction the County should be going,
i.e. "getting more private -government relationships in funding some of these projects." He
asked if Ms. White had any ideas as to where this money might come from. Ms. White
explained that one project had been counted twice (library carpet replacement), so there is
$20,000 available for some other use.
Ms. Huckle asked when Rt. 29 will be ready to be landscaped. Mr. Cilimberg stated
improvements were scheduled to be completed by the end of 1995. He pointed out that
planting would take place in the spring of 1996, which falls within the next GIP year (95-96).
Ms. Huckle felt landscaping should he up to the merchants. Ms. White pointed out that a
policy decision as to maintenance of landscaping will have to be made because that will be an
on -going operating cost once the project is complete.
Ms. fluckle asked staff to explain a parks and recreation request --the "Forloines Study." Mr.
Cilimberg explained this money was for a feasibility study in connection with a citizen's offer
to donate land for the construction. of a public golf course, and ether recreational use_ The
study is to detennine if this is the right place for this type of facility and also whether it has
potential for the County as a long-term operation. The study is needed before the County
makes a committinent to accept the land for that purpose.
Though public comment was invited, none was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the Capital Improvements
Program for 1995-1996 through 1999-2000 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as presented by staff, with the recommendation that the landscaping project for Rt.
29 be added.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that the new CIP process had worked much better than it has
in past years. He noted that in seconding [lie Motion he was making the assumption that the
C1P Technical Committee had done its work well and he did not want to be in the position of
12-6-94 8
second guessing the committee based on the amount of work they had spent on the review in
comparisons to the amount of world lie had spent.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
WORD SESSION
Growth Area Expansion
Mr, Benish introduced the topic. 't lie session was to focus on a. discussion of the guiding
principles for staff in developing the Land Use Plan and for considering expansion of Growth
Areas, Staff was seeking Commission comment on six guiding principles. (See Attachment
A for the six guiding principles.)
Ms, Imhoff commented on items 1, 2 and 3:
--Numbers 1 and 2. She felt the "bullets" were inappropriate. She felt staff had gone
one step too far. She suggested: "I think you should go back and view these as some very
basic guiding principals."
--Number 3: She did not view items (a) and (b) as being guiding principles. She felt
these were things which the private sector does. She felt item (c) was the one which the
Commission should view as being important.
Mr. Nitchmann asked the following questions of staff:
--Question: "Are there any sacred parameters during this review of the growth area
expansion that we can't change?" ANSWER: The watershed area. Also, staff is following
the concept of the growth management policy which is in place, i.e. "designating growth
areas and limiting development in those areas not designated for growth." Mentioning
Crozet, Earlysville, and Milton, Mr. Nitchmann anticipated there would be a conflict between
what the citizens in certain rural areas desire vs. what the county views as the "long-term
good based upon studies that we do and comments that we get from everybody."
--Question: "Are open space boundaries lines that cannot be changed?" 1V4r.
Nitchmann thought it would be helpful to have an overlay map showing the growth areas,
projected expansion of the growth areas, and open space. ANSWER: Mr. Cilimberg
explained four basic parameters which staff had used in developing the maps:
--There was no encroachment on the water supply watershed;
--An effort was made to avoid any significant areas which were designated in the open
space plan. The expansion areas "more or less" follow that approach.
--An effort was made to ensure "that we were moving from existing growth areas
where infrastructure could be logically extending, including water and sewer, in any kind of
sensible approach to utility service for a particular area." (Ms. Imhoff felt these should be
included as guiding principles.)
f3
12-b-94
--The assumption was tirade that "we are trying to accommodate new growth in the
county, over a projection period, with growth areas, and that we were going to continue to see
the rural areas be basically a conservation area for the county."
Mr. Jenkins asked how (and when) it was going to be determined how much growth area will
be needed for this Comprehensive Plan period, ANSWER: Staff will be providing that
information at the next work session, i.e. an inventory of available land based on population
projections and anticipated demand for residential units. (Ms. Imhoff asked if the inventory
could include a breakdown of "how much acreage or people absorption these areas mean.")
Mr. Jenkins expressed the belief that "emphasis on in -fill is an item we want to look at very
closely." Ms. Hackle expressed support for in -fill also.
The Commission agreed with the first paragraph of number 5, but there was disagreement
about various parts of the second paragraph. Mr. Blue felt it would be difficult to define
geographical boundaries around existing villages because "they are in the rural area now and
each of those parcels have X number of development rights." He felt this would be a "tricky
political issue" and he questioned whether it was a good planning procedure.
Referring to the second paragraph of number 5, Ms. Imhoff felt the Commission should get
direction from the Board of Supervisors before considering the designation of certain existing
crossroads as very small-scale villages or rural crossroads. She stated: "Everything that I
have heard is that this Board has said this is not a path they want to take...." She felt this
would "dilute" the existing villages, communities and country stores and would be a
"senseless proliferation of commercial uses in the rural area." She was in favor of deciding
which uses are desirable in the rural area, and keeping those by special permit. Ms. Huckle
agreed with Ms. Imhoff.
Staff explained that this had been one of the recommendations of a sub -committee of the
Housing Committee. Mr. Benish briefly reviewed other recommendations of the Committee.
Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about the last sentence in the first paragraph of number 5 (i.e.
"Existing Villages not intended to be served by public utilities should be removed as Growth
Areas."). She later stated: "If they are completely filled in, if there is no development
potential and you do not see them as an area that you would add additional acreage to in the
future, then, yes, it's built out --it's no longer a designated growth area."
Ms. Imhoff asked if staff had considered having a "sustainable development guiding
principle." She noted that there is a local Sustainable Development Task Force which has
been developing ,some principles for development in urban areas. She felt this might be a
good source. She stated: "I want guiding principles that say 'Development in our urban areas
will be well designed; it'll work; it'll have infrastructure support --not just water and sewer, but
sidewalks and transportation as well."' She concluded that this might be getting a little ahead
of the process and might be a part of an eventual goal statement.
1:9�y
12-6-94 10
Mr. Cilimberg surnmarized what he perceived to be the Commission's directions on the six
principles:
--There is`no disagreement that the four parameters used by staff (described above) are
important.
--There is consensus that in -fill is important (Item 2).
--There is no disagreement with No.l.
--There is agreement "that we should be looking beyond 20 years because of the
ultimate needs of utilities and that plays into the whole infrastructure idea."
--There is agreement with No. 4-
--There is agreement with the first paragraph of No. 5, though Ms. Imhoff has some
conceni about the last sentence of that paragraph.
--There is agreement that there are some limiting factors, including watershed
protection and water supply.
Nis. Imhoff thought there had been a request for more information on the second paragraph of
No. 5 in terms of exactly what areas might qualify for this consideration as small-scale
villages or rural crossroads. Mr. Cilimberg responded that though staff would be glad to
provide further information on this concept, he questioned, "at this point, in trying to
consider the growth area extension, whether it is that important." Prior to further
Commission discussion of this idea, Ms. hnhoff felt it would be helpful to have the Board
minutes showing their discussion of this concept.
Mr. Jenkins stressed the need for direction as to how much more growth area land is needed
for this five year plan.
Mr. Nitchmann felt there needed to be further discussion on "is there a lack of utilization of
growth area land now, and, if so, why?"
Public comment was allowed.
Ms. Anne Mallick, a resident of Earlysville, expressed concern about the possibility of water
and sewer being extended to Earlysville. She stated this "has a lot of farmers really scared"
because further development would result in higher tax assessments which would put a lot of
farmers out of business.
Ms. Karen Strickland, a resident of Earlysville, expressed concern about further growth. She
was opposed to the extension of public water and sewer and felt many other Earlysville
residents shared this view. Ms. Strickland also expressed the opinion that the County has a
"responsibility to help preserve the City of Charlottesville-"
Mr, Jim Novak, a resident of Advance .Mills, expressed opposition to the extension of public
utilities.
.2S
12-b-94
11
Ms. Karen Dane, a resident of Free Union, expressed support for decreasing growth area
boundaries.
There was no further public comment.
Ids. Imhoff expressed support for Ms. Strickland's comment about the City. She suggested
there should be a guiding principle discussion at some point as to. " what's our relationship: and
our responsibility to tha City of Charlottesville?"
There being no fiu-ther business, the meeting adjourned at 9.30 p.m.
RO
V. Wayo Cilimberg, S ry
-2v�o