Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 11 1992 PC MinutesFEBRUARY 11, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 11, 1992, 7:00 PM, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. William Fritz, Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of January 14, 1992 and January 28, 1992 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1-456 Review - Sewer Extension to Airport In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Brent (Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority) explained connection fees for future users. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. (The next agenda item--SP-91-55 Charles & Shelvie Morris --was delayed because the applicant was not present.) ZMA-91-10 Holly Memorial Gardens Inc. - Petition to rezone 6.75 acres from R-1, Residential to C-1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 42G, is located on the east side of Route 29 approximately 2/10 mile south of Timberwood Boulevard. This site is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District and is in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is located in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Community Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "...it is the opinion of staff that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and that the positive factors outweigh the negative factors. Therefore, staff recommends approval of -97 2-11-92 2 ZMA 91-10 Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc. subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers." In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz explained that traffic generation from future uses is limited by application of the ITE trip generation figures. Mr. Grimm asked Mr. Fritz to expound on the Virginia Department of Transportation's comments in relation to possible sight distance problems. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant was being advised that "additional activity" may be required to obtain sight distance. He stated this would mean additional work on the site, not on Rt. 29. In response to Ms. Andersen's request, Mr. Fritz described the dimensions and acreage of the property. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the number of potential entrances onto Rt. 29. Mr. Fritz explained that at the time site plans are presented entrance locations will be determined, and there is a provision in the ordinance which allows the requirement of cross easements. Staff will attempt to limit the total number of entrances through that mechanism. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Frank Kessler, owner of the adjacent property, expressed his support for the proposal. He noted that joint entrances are easier to arrange if the zoning is already in place. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Andersen stated that her concerns about possible entrance problems had been addressed. Without further discussion, Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-91-10 for Holly Memorial Gardens, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer. The motion passed unanimously. 2-11-92 3 Townwood Recreation Areas - Proposal to delete recreation areas indicated on the approved site plan. Townwood is located on the east side of Rt. 743 at its intersection with Rt. 631 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1) . Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff is able to support the deletion of the recreation area in Phase I due to its proximity to Greenbrier Drive. However, staff does not support the deletion of the other recreation areas." Mr. Fritz also reported that of the ballots which had been sent to the Townwood residents, 64% were in favor of deletion, 4% were in favor of installation of the play areas, and 31% of the ballots had not been returned. (Note: It was later determined that those residents in favor were scattered throughout the development.) Ms. Huckle asked for a description of the size of the play areas. It was determined that the areas would include playground equipment such as swings, slides, etc., but would not be large enough for organized games such as softball_ The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Monica Vaughan, President of the Townwood Property Owner's Association, addressed the Commission. She read a lengthy statement in support of the request for deletion. A copy of the statement is attached to these minutes as ATTACHMENT A. Her main points included the following: --If the facilities were going to be installed, they should have been constructed 10 years ago. --Play areas are not feasible due to the site restrictions such as steepness and drainage problems and site locations which would result in the play areas being in close proximity to homes and streets. --Of 140 ballots mailed, 90 were returned and the overwhelming majority is opposed to the construction of the play areas. --Construction of the play areas will make them usable by only a small percentage of the residents (in a certain age group), whereas now the open space areas are used by all residents. --Construction of the play areas according to the requirements in effect at the time of the approval would not meet today's standards for such recreation areas. (It was later pointed out that this was not correct.) vi 2-11-92 4 Mr. Keeler briefly explained the ordinance provisions related to this type of use, i.e. provisions dealing with surface treatment and groundcover, adequacy of size and shape of site, maximum slope limitation, adequacy of pedestrian access, compatibility with adjoining uses, fencing. He confirmed that construction would have to meet today's standards. Mr. Grimm noted that there appeared to be a problem with one site in terms of access across privately owned property. Mr. Kingsley Durrant, the property owner effected (1602 Townwood Road), pointed out the location of his property and problems with access to the proposed recreation site. He also noted that the area was very small and was blocked from view on all sides. Mr. Dennis Rosencrance, a Director of the Townwood Property Owner's Association, addressed the Commission and expressed his support for the deletion of the recreation areas. He noted that the open space areas are presently used for badminton and soccer. He also noted that there are easily accessible tot lots in nearby Four Seasons. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Fritz explained that he did not know why the recreation areas had never been installed but the County is still holding the bond. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Frank Kessler, the original developer of the property, addressed the Commission. He stressed that he had nothing to lose or gain regardless of the outcome of the homeowners' request for deletion of the recreation areas because the bond has been posted and the contractor was paid several years ago to install the recreation areas. He stated that if the areas are deleted he would give the money to the homeowners' association. He explained the history of the issue. He stated that the areas had not been installed previously because the homeowners could not decide what they wanted and that absence of a decision has continued over the years. Mr. Kessler took exception to a statement made by Ms. Vaughan about insufficient landscaping. He pointed out that 150% more landscaping was installed on the site than was required, though it may be in slightly different locations than was shown on the original plan. He explained that the development of the site was "crowded" because of the donation of frontage property for improvements to Rio Road. In conclusion, Mr. Kessler agreed that the site was very crowded and he supported the homeowner's request for deletion of the recreation areas. N9 2-11-92 5 Mr. David Hillstrom, a resident of neighboring Garden Court, addressed the Commission. He read a letter from the residents of Garden Court which was in support of the Townwood residents' request for deletion of the play areas. He spoke of existing nuisance and vandalism problems caused by children playing close to his property. However, he felt that the proposed recreation areas would exacerbate the problem. He also felt there was more benefit from leaving the open spaces and woods as they currently exist than in developing them in formal playgrounds. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined there was no one present to speak in favor of construction of the play areas. Mr. Kessler pointed out a lot of open space had been used up for retention basins in the early phases of the development. In later phases the developer had contributed to a regional retention basin. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he indicated the existing basins could not be filled in because they still function as retention basis. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Kessler if he felt there was any place on the site which could be used as a playground site. Mr. Kessler stated he had not visited the site for some time but felt the best place was in the "wooded area", the exact location of which he could not recall. He stated the perimeter of the site is in slopes. Regarding the regional detention basin referred to by Mr. Kessler, Mr. Cilimberg explained the basin referred to is the Birnam basin, the appropriation for which is in the current CIP. The public hearing was once again closed. Mr. Blue stated that it appeared that the County had been at fault 10 years ago because a thorough site plan inspection had not been performed. He noted that the overwhelming majority of the residents of the development, and the adjacent property owners, are opposed to the construction of the play areas. He noted also that there was no personal financial gain or loss to the developer. He felt the solution was obvious. Mr. Blue moved that the Townwood Homeowners Association Request for Deletion of the Recreation Facilities be approved. 4?1 2-11-92 Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle stated she was in agreement with added that she hoped that in the future the give consideration to the needs of children provide adequate play areas for children of hoped that approval of the request would not precedent. 6 Mr. Blue. She County would and would all ages. She set a Mr. Grimm expressed his support of the motion. He agreed that the site was too tight. He did not think precedent was a concern given the physical layout of this particular site and the difficulty in developing any type of meaningful, safe, easily accessible play areas. In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Fritz stated that he had visited the site and he was not aware of any area on the property which would overcome all the negatives perceived by the applicant. Mr. Johnson agreed this was an issue which should be addressed in all future site plans. Mr. Keeler commented that he did not think precedent was an issue because this development had been approved prior to current recreation regulations. He explained that under current regulations a 1,500 square foot tot lot and a total of 6,000 square feet of multi -purpose recreation area is required for the development of 30 units. (Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Fritz had included this in his original report, but had been been directed to delete it to avoid confusion.) The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-91-55 Charles & Shelvie Morris - Petition to locate a single wide mobile home on 13.999 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 36, Parcels 41 and 41B, is located on the northeast side of Rt. 608 approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of Rts. 645 and 608 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area. Because the applicant was not present, it was decided this item would be deferred. Mr. Blue stated he had visited the site and a conversation with an adjacent property owner Zed him to believe that the applicant is under the impression that the matter had been 9Q 2-11-92 7 settled. He asked that staff make it clear to the applicant that they must be present at the time of the hearing. (Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant had been notified by mail.) Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that SP-91-55 for Charles & Shelvie Morris be deferred to March 10. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Annual Report - Mr. Grimm agreed to work with staff to complete the 1991 Annual Report. Georgetown Green Sound Barrier - Mr. Johnson asked if staff had been able to determine the status of this project. Mr. Cilimberg reported that he was waiting to hear from Mr. Brandenberger. He stated he would check with Mr. Brandenberger again. Recognition of Former Commissioners - It was decided Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Rittenhouse would be presented with Jefferson Cups. Status of Sian Ordinance - The meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and County staff is to take place later this month. Development Rights - Mr. Cilimberg stated there had been no change. He explained that the Board had determined that amendments were not necessary and that the Zoning Administrator is now making determinations based on "parcels of record." Status of Wal-Mart Pro'ect - Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the lack of progress on this site and the present condition of the site. He asked if there were no regulations governing time limits on construction. Mr. Keeler explained that under the Soil Erosion Ordinance the site will have to be re -seeded within a certain time after the cessation of grading. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to the packets for February 18 which included a copy of the Zoning Ordinance and proposed changes (shown on yellow pages). There was a brief discussion about the procedure for receiving public comment on proposed ordinance changes. Some Commissioners felt that the public should be involved 95 2-11-92 8 early in the process so as to avoid delays and re -writings later. Mr. Keeler explained that asking staff to meet with "appropriate people" creates a difficult situation because of the possibility of inadvertantly omitting some group. He pointed out that the purpose of the public hearing process is to accept public comment. Mr. Cilimberg added that it is not in the Commission's best interest to have the public made aware of proposed amendments BEFORE the Commission has seen them. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. V. Wayne limb rg, r ary m