HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 04 1992 PC Minutes8-4-92
1
AUGUST 4, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, August 4 1992, 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 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. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of July
21, 1992 were approved as submitted.
NOTE: The first ten minutes of this meeting were not taped
due to equipment problems. Discussed briefly during that
time was a Consent Agenda Preview (Covenant Church of God
Major Site Plan Amendment). Mr. Blue asked what would
happen to the run-off which has been draining into the
detention basin which is proposed for abandonment.
The taped record began at approximately 7:10 during Mr.
Fritz's staff report for SP-92-46.
SP-92-46 James E. Clark - Petition to issue two development
rights for a 25-acre parcel (10.5.2) in order to permit two
proposed dwellings on property zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 126, parcel 31F, is located
on the south side of the intersection of Schuyler Road (Rt.
800) and Howardsville Turnpike (Rt. 602) in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area III).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Review of this application has provided mixed findings.
However, based on the property's location away from existing
development or growth areas and past Board actions, staff
does not recommend approval of SP-92-46 for James E. Clark."
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about the meaning of
suggested condition No. 2, Mr. Fritz explained that the
approval of this petition will allow the applicant to
subdivide the property and the subdivision will be limited
to two houses, a common driveway and the use of the 4-acre
parcel with a garage. He explained that condition No. 2 was
to insure that a third dwelling would not be placed on the
4-acre garage parcel.
l
8-4-92
2
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz briefly
explained the history of the property. He concluded: "He
can build one dwelling on it at this time and that's all, in
addition to the existing garage."
Given known problems with septic fields on adjoining
property, Ms. Huckle asked about the suitability of the soil
for a septic system. Mr. Fritz explained that a soil
scientist's report submitted by the applicant indicates that
suitable area does exist for drainfields. No Health
Department comment has been received.
Mr. Blue asked if a condition should be added requiring
Health Department approval. Mr. Fritz explained that a
building permit would not issued without Health Department
approval.
Mr. Blue asked if the request were to be denied, could the
applicant build only one house, but then subdivide the house
lot from the garage lot? Mr. Fritz responded: "My
understanding is that he could not." Mr. Blue interpreted
that the house and garage would have to remain as one
parcel. Mr. Fritz stated that he was not certain of the
answer to the question and would have to consult the Zoning
Administrator. Mr. Cilimberg commented: "It is my
understanding the Zoning Administrator has indicated in the
past, in this case and a few others where there was a
non-residential unit, that there could be a residential unit
on the property, but I don't think that carries the right to
divide that residential unit from the non-residential."
Mr. Blue commented: "If the applicant chose to do that, as
he said to sell or give this to a member of his family, but
he wouldn't want to sell his business, essentially, we
would be denying him that opportunity if we turn this down,
even one residence. Is that correct?" Mr. Bowling
responded: "It's possible. The Zoning Administrator would
have to make the ultimate determination." Mr. Cilimberg
added: "Or you could approve it for just one dwelling and
the allowance of the one division."
It was noted that a family division restricts the sale of
the property for one year.
The applicant, Mr. Jim Clark, addressed the Commission. His
comments, including answers to Commission questions,
included the following:
--The purpose of the request is to allow the property
to be given to his two daughters, i.e. to allow it to be
divided into three parts by cutting the garage off and
giving 10 1/2 acres each to two daughters. No momey will be
exchanged; the property will be a gift to the daughters.
There is no intent, at this time, to sell the property.
--VDOT has granted entrance permits.
It
8-4-92
3
--Soils tests have been performed by a soils scientist
recommended by Mr. Crump of the Health Department. Mr.
Crump stated he would accept the soil scientist's report.
The soil scientists determined that the soils were
acceptable for drainfields.
--The house sites are on a 2% to 6% grade.
--The joint driveway was recommended by the staff,
though it will be less environmentally sensitive. VDOT
approved entrances on both Rt. 800 and Rt. 602.
--The applicant was not aware of the limited
development rights when the property was purchased though he
acknowledged that it was noted on the plat.
Mr. Blue commented: "That brings up a point, Mr. Chairman,
that I would like put on the record. I think this is a
classic example of what I think was probably a mistake made
in December of 1980 when the County passed this law that
gave 5 development rights to every parcel of land that
existed at that time, regardless of the size. I have no
problem with trying to keep rural areas rural and having a
density requirement, but I know of so many examples that
have come up in the past 12 years of people that have had,
the ones that were either lucky or very wise, who had, we'll
say, for purposes of example, 1,000 acres, when they saw
this law was going to effect, they had surveyors go out
there and cut up 50 acre parcels on paper and get it
recorded and right next to them, the person who owned
another large tract decided, or didn't even think about it,
decided it wasn't something he was interested in and 10
years later he realized, as this applicant has, or his
predecessor who owned it, that he had only had 5 development
rights for perhaps 300 or 500 acres. And yet, in other
areas of the County, or even in the same area, people that
divided it up on paper ahead of time, had the right to cut
it up into 50-acre tracts and could get the 5 acres and a
couple of 21 acres, or I guess the optimum would have been
to cut it all up into 31 acre tracts at that time, and some
people did that. I know of a number of people. I think
that was a real mistake and I don't know if it can ever be
rectified, but I certainly would like to have somebody think
about if there was a way to designate density in the rural
areas without creating such an unfair situation as we have
today. It really is unfair."
Ms. Huckle noted that development rights are listed on
plats.
Mr. Blue stated that was not his point. He continued:
"It's unfair. "The point I'm trying to make is that
somewhere along the line, I think the County and perhaps the
planning staff or whoever recommended this, have never
convinced me that this is a good way to control growth in
the rural areas. It's just
3
8-4-92 4
absolutely unfair, and if it's not I'd like to hear somebody
say so, but not at this time. The reason I brought it up,
and I'm sorry I took your time, is because I think this is a
classic example of what I think has happened all over the
County. (This applicant) fell victim to it, and admitted
that he did not read the note on the plat, but there are a
lot of people in your same situation."
Mr. Clark stated he had always been under the impression
that if you owned two acres in the County, you had the right
to build a dwelling on it, but he now realizes that is not
true. Mr. Blue added: "Not since 1980.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox addressed the Commission. He expressed
support for the request. He called attention to a statement
in the staff report related to use -value taxation and
interpreted that staff was saying: "Because 75% of the land
of the site is in use -value taxation, that automatically
means that this is an agricultural and forestal district and
that use -value taxation is a valid indicator of commercial
agricultural and forestry activities." He commented: "In
Albemarle County 75% of the county is in use -value taxation.
I don't think Pantops Shopping Center is an agricultural
forestal district, but I'm almost certain that 75% of the
land within one mile of that shopping center is in use -value
taxation. I think use -value taxation in Albemarle County is
more an indicator of proximity to hobby horse farms and real
estate speculators than it is to genuine commercial
agriculture. I think that assumption is definitely
invalid." He quoted the following statement from the staff
report: "Approval of the additional lot would have minimal
effect on the integrity of the four purposes of the rural
areas." He concluded: "It's not going to impact on those
four holy goals. But what I would like to know is, if the
principle goal of the Comprehensive Plan was what I think it
should be, and that is that the county should see to the
health, safety and welfare of ALL the residents of the
county, and put that at the top of the list, what then would
staff's recommendation be, because this is certainly
beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the
Clarks." These four major elements keep coming up and I
think that needs to be reassessed because local government
is to see to the needs of all the people, not just the
landowners."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Blue's question regarding the
recommendation for joint access to the public road, Mr.
Fritz explained that staff attempts to minimize the number
of entrances onto a public road where possible and the
8-4-92 5
applicant had agreed to the suggestion. Mr. Blue agreed
that normally it is a good recommendation, but in this case
he felt (if the request is approved) separate entrances are
preferable because less land clearing will be required.
Mr. Blue felt the favorable aspects of the proposal (listed
in the staff report) "made more sense than the unfavorable
ones with one exception --this applicant will be given an
opportunity to get one more residence in the rural areas
that most people in the rural area are denied because of
this 5 development rights." He indicated he had not yet
decided how he felt about that, "whether we ought to try a
fairness issue and since it's blatantly unfair to eveybody
we ought to make it unfair to him too, or whether we ought
to try to correct something that I do think is unfair." He
invited other Commission comments.
Ms. Andersen commented: "Until it is corrected, I would
feel better abiding by what is there in the books, with your
comments on the record, and then pursuing what you see as an
unfair situation."
Mr. Nitchmann stated he could support the request. He asked
for further explanation of condition No. 2. He explained:
"If a wrong has been done since 1980 and we are going to
continue to live with it, I think this is a perfect example
that may be the spearhead that gets it up in front of the
Board of Supervisors and in front of the public." He
pointed out that this is a family situation and he felt it
would be wrong to deny the request. In response to Mr.
Grimm's question, he confirmed that he felt this was a
"unique" situation. He noted that the staff report did not
really give a reason to deny the request "other than it's
been a precedent set before that we've never accepted
anything like this. I just don't believe this should go
on."
Ms. Huckle commented: "It's more than a precedent, it's the
law in the Ordinance and we can't change the law here,
that's not our function. Our function is to follow the laws
that the Supervisors have made. I think we should not make
the mistake of providing an unwanted precedent. I am sure
there are hundreds of properties in the County that would
leap into this if this were changed and the whole idea of
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance would be
down the drain. I don't see anything unique about this."
Mr. Nitchmann responded: "If it was the law it wouldn't be
before us to give us the opportunity to change it."
Regarding the question of "uniqueness" of the proposal, Mr.
Blue asked: "What about the fact that the land is not good
for agriculture, nor particularly good for forestal
purposes? I think that makes it, maybe, unique."
8-4-92
6
Ms. Huckle disagreed. She felt
land that was not suitable for
"They are not being denied the
house and have a business which
with. This is not a taking."
there was probably a lot of
agriculture. She noted:
use of the land to put in one
is controversial to begin.
Mr. Blue asked what Ms. Huckle meant about the business
being "controversial." Ms. Huckle declined to respond
except to suggest that Mr. Blue check the records.
Mr. Blue stated that he had checked the record (though he
had not read past minutes). He stated: "I kind of got the
impression that this might have been received more favorably
if the controversy hadn't been there. Is that not true?"
Ms. Huckle responded: "I don't know anything about that. I
just feel this would set an unwanted precedent and I
couldn't support it for that reason." She explained that
the precedent would be to "completely wipe out the
restrictions that we have on subdivision rights."
Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Does this completely wipe it out?"
Mr. Bowling responded: "No." Mr. Blue added: "When they
passed that law they did leave an additional loophole in
here. You could get additional development rights by this
very process, a special use permit. So the Board, in all
its wisdom, must have decided that it was reasonable."
Ms. Andersen stated she trusted staff's expertise and she
supported the staff recommendation.
Mr. Nitchmann stated: "I can't support their
recommendations because they contradict their own
recommendations within the report." He agreed that the
Board must have anticipated that this type of situation
would arise.
Mr. Johnson stated that he needs a good reason to deny a
public request. He addressed the unfavorable factors listed
in the staff report as follows:
--(Some soils have severe restrictions for development)
- He questioned the applicability of this concern since the
applicant would be required to get Health Department
approval. He felt the objection was meaningless.
--(Site not located in a developed rural area) - He
questioned the significance of this statement since there
are eight houses directly adjacent to this property.
--(Site remote from designated growth areas) - "Why
should we deny approval to an applicant because his site is
located away from a growth area?"
--(Based on use value tax records, site within
ag/forestal area) - "It is not an actual
agricultural/forestal area."
4(0
8-4-92 7
He concluded: "If we're denying this it can be for only one
reason; we're restricting population of the rural area in
order to limit population in the rural area. That's an
indefensible justification to my mind. If we want to limit
the population in the rural area, we've got to have a better
reason than just keeping the population down." Regarding
the zoning, he stated: "In the preparation of the
Comprehensive Plan, every place in the County had to be
zoned. Obviously every individual parcel could not be given
individual attention, so there are some discrepancies that
come up and I think this is one of them. I think part of
our purpose here is to evaluate each application on it's own
merits. As far as setting a precedent, Article 10.5.2 gives
the Board the prerogative to proceed and change the
development rights as they see fit. I don't see any
precedent here." He concluded that he supported the
application with recommended conditions 1 and 2--(He
interpreted No. 2 as meaning : "There are 3 parcels being
created here, one for a house, another one for a house, and
the third one is for the garage and you can't put another
house on the garage parcel.") --and the deletion of No. 3.
Mr. Grimm asked the applicant to review those circumstances
which he felt made the application unique. Mr. Clark
responded with an explanation of his reason for making the
request. He explained that he had not been aware of the
limitations on the property until after he had ordered two
houses for his daughters and then applied for a building
permit. He had then been advised that a special permit
would be needed. It was his understanding that the purpose
of a special permit was to allow the Commission to make a
judgment on an individual situation. He felt the
Comprehensive Plan was a guideline and it was up to the
"good common sense" of the Commission to make a decision one
way or the other. He added that his daughters work in the
family business (also located on the property) and it will
allow them to be close to their work. It will save his
daughters from having to purchase land and the land is not
good for anything else.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Clark confirmed
that the property was served by public water. He also
confirmed that the soil scientist had been aware that two
houses were to be placed on the property.
Regarding the permanancy of the family ownership, Mr. Clark
explained that though he did not ever expect his daughters
to move, he could not say what the future might bring. Mr.
Clark also indicated it was his understanding that this type
of family division was allowable. (Mr. Keeler addressed
this statement and explained that the Family Division
Provisions are in the Subdivision Ordinance and have nothing
to do with development rights on a piece of property. He
agreed that there is widespread community confusion about
17
8-4-92 8
this issue, i.e. just because this is a family division does
not mean it is exempt from development rights requirements.)
Ms. Huckle interpreted: "So if you have 10 children you do
not get 10 development rights, you would still only get
five." Mr. Keeler confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Keeler recalled there had been discussion, when the
ordinance was originally adopted, about this type of
situation, e.g. "what happens if somebody has 6 children and
5 development rights?" He recalled that it had been
indicated "that that would be a consideration." He
concluded: "I don't know if you can apply that to somebody
who buys a piece of property without any development rights,
is that a consideration or not?"
Mr. Clark recalled that the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors had stated, at a recent public hearing on the
Open Space Plan, that "he would guarantee that no child
would be cut out of his building rights by this plan."
Referring to the Affordable Housing Work Session which the
Commission had just completed a few hours earlier, Mr.
Nitchmann commented: "We just spent an hour trying to
figure out how to get young folks, or even keep old folks,
in homes, and now we're sitting here, to some extent, trying
to figure out how to keep these young couples out of homes.
I can't abide by that."
Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-42 for James E. Clark be
reommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions (with suggested condition No. 3
deleted):
1. Staff approval of subdivision plats;
2. Approval of this permit allows two dwellings in addition
to the public garage. The parcel upon which the public
garage is located, after subdivision, may be used only as a
garage in compliance with SP-91-21 and no dwelling unit
shall be established on that parcel. (NOTE: This new
langauge was suggested by Mr. Fritz as clarification of the
original language.)
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Grimm stated he would support the motion. He felt the
application was unique in that it is a family situation; the
family business is located on the property and having the
two daughters close to the business will be beneficial; and
the land has no agricultural or forestal value.
9
8-4-92 9
Mr. Blue stated he agreed with Mr. Grimm. He added: "I
guess I'll have to worry about my own conscience and about
how unfair we're being to the other people that are not
knowledgable about this and are not doing it, but as they
come forward, I will have an opportunity to rectify what I
think has been unfair since December, 1980.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners
Huckle and Andersen casting the dissenting votes.
SUB-92-097 - Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 28 lots averaging 9,600 square feet with 2.22 acres
of open space from a 9.9 acre parcel. Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N, is located on the south side of
Proffit Road (Route 649) approximately 750 feet west of
Timberwood Parkway. Zoned R-10, Residential [Proffered] in
the Rivanna Magisterial Dsitrict. This property is located
in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead,
recommended for High Density Residential).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He also distributed
copies of petitions of opposition to the request. Staff
recommended approval, subject to conditions.
Referring to staff's concern regarding underutilization of
the land based on it's R-10 zoning, Mr. Blue noted that the
main objection from adjoining property owners and the church
is based on a feeling that the proposal is an overuse of the
land. He asked staff to comment on this dichotomy. Mr.
Fritz responded that he did not recall there having been any
significant opposition during the rezoning process (January,
1992).
Referring to the requests made by the adjoining church in
its letter of July 30, 1992, Mr. Blue noted: "With the
physical limitations of that lot, if you have a 10-foot
buffer and place for parking, you either have to eliminate a
lot of lots or it just isn't big enough. Is that right?"
Mr. Fritz responded: "If you put in open space along here
and recreation, yes, to get the same number of lots in less
area you have to condense the size of those lots and make
them samller." Mr. Blue noted: "But you could still do
that under the law. It would make them less desirable from
the selling standpoint, but the density wouldn't be
effected. Is that correct?" Mr. Fritz: "They would still
be within the 10 dwelling units per acre that they are
permitted. Whether or not they would still have realistic
building sites on each lot, I could not speculate." Mr.
Blue: "Probably wouldn't would be my guess." Mr. Cilimberg
added: "You would probably be looking at a different type
development altogether. You may be looking at a higher net
density in the developed area but at the same gross density
you would probably be looking at townhouses." Mr. Blue
9
8-4-92 10
concluded: "I guess the point I am trying to make, from the
standpoint of adjacent owners, you might end up with a less
attractive development if you do some of the things they're
asking. It's impressive to me that so many people are
objecting and yet it seems well within the realm of what's
legal." Mr. Cilimberg noted that this proposed development
is lower density than the adjoining Forest Lakes.
Mr. Cilimberg described the history of the rezoning of the
property. He stated: "The features that are shown here
reflect that rezoning, except for the density. So they are
really developing in accordance with the rezoning and what
the Comprehensive Plan has identified for that area." Mr.
Blue added: "And the density is less, yet all the
objections are that it is too dense."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush. He
pointed out that staff's review found the plan to be in
compliance with all applicable County regulations and
zoning. His comments, answers to Commission questions and
responses to the items listed in the church letter were as
follows:
--The decision has already been made that this is a
proper place for this type of development.
--The development is compatible in size with lots in
adjoining Forest Lakes. The smallest lot width in this
development is approximately 70 feet (vs. 65 feet in Forest
Lakes) .
--The Ordinance requires 2 off-street parking spaces
for each lot and should not be a problem for these lots.
--The development is compatible with adjacent
development in Forest Lakes and future development along Rt.
649.
--This area has been designated for growth by the
County because it has utilities available and the roads are
"reasonably adequate."
--The County has required dedication of land for future
widening of roads (just as the church was required to
dedicate land for widening). Thirty feet is being dedicated
and an additional 30 feet is being reserved, plus nine
additional feet for a bike trail. The developers are doing
all that they can to improve the transportation network,
including the Rt. 649 situation. (He noted that this issue
had also been faced by the church.)
--2.2 acres is being set aside for dedication to the
homeowners (when the homeowners' association is formed) and
that will be used as a passive recreation area and all lots
will have adequate access to that area.
--A 10-foot buffer around all sides of the property is
not realistic, "but it is the intention of the applicant to
provide for 10-buffers in the restrictive covenants that are
drafted along with the final plat. That buffer will provide
that there be no clearing other than undesirable undergrowth
and smaller vegetation, that larger trees be maintained and
/4
8-4-92 11
no grading be done within ten feet of the rear lot lines."
He felt all the adjoining property owners could expect was
that "the common boundary between this project and their
properties have some buffer."
--Dedication of the 2.2 acre common area to the County
is not a workable suggestion because the County does not
want to own small 2-acre parcels throughout the County. It
is in the best interests of the residents and the adjacent
property owners that these areas be owned by the homeowners
association who have a real interest in the area to maintain
them and make sure that they are used for proper purposes.
--Forest Lakes has no sidewalks and no problems have
been encountered. Very little foot traffic is anticipated
within the neighborhood. VDOT will not maintain sidewalks
so maintenance would have to be guaranteed by the County.
--It is anticipated that utilities will be located
along the front of the property and the electricity will
probably be underground.
--The developer will be selling the lots and purchasers
will make the decisions about the type of house. It is
planned that there will be restrictive covenants, but those
have not yet been determined. It is anticipated that the
houses will be "compatible to Forest Lakes."
--There are no critical slopes within the lots, though
there are some in the green space.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons, including neighboring property owners
and members of the Maple Grove Christian Church, addressed
the Commission and expressed their opposition to the
proposal: Mr. Don Donlenger, Mr. Franklin Jones, Mr. Ray
Leake, Mr. Keith Jones, and Ms. Ruth Lucas. (Approximately
15 others --members of the church --showed their opposition to
the proposal by standing when asked to do so by Ms. Lucas.)
Their reasons for opposition included the following:
--Not sufficient room for children play area.
--Devaluation of neighboring properties.
--The original rezoning was a mistake.
--Density too great.
--The lots are so small that they will invite the
development of shacks.
--Emergency vehicles will have difficulty serving the
development because of the narrow streets. (Mr. Cilimberg
explained later that the final design of the road will have
to meet VDOT standards, including an adequate turnaround
area, in the cul de sac, for buses.
--Additional traffic on an already overburdened road.
All those who spoke indicated they would not be opposed to
the development if it is similar to Forest Lakes. However,
most were skeptical that that would be the case.
Ms. Huckle asked the owner of the property (Mr. Mowbry) to
describe the type of houses that would be built on the lots.
8-4-92 12
Mr. Mowbry again explained that he would not be building the
houses, but rather was just developing the lots. Mr.
Roudabush explained that at the time the final plat is put
to record, restrictive covenants will be included which may
cover such things as size of dwelling and other items which
are normally addressed through restrictive covenants. In
response to Ms. Huckle's question about type of materials,
pitch of roof, etc, Mr. Roudabush stated: "That is not
something the County normally regulates and is not something
that is submitted as part of submission for approval." Mr.
Mowbry noted that the property has been in his family for
many years and he had "no desire to create a ghetto on
Proffit Road, and no desire to do anything but have a very
compatible community to the area out there. We are going to
take care of the area as best we can." Ms. Huckle noted
that the neighbors would feel more comfortable if these
items were addressed in the covenants.
Regarding access to the common area, Mr. Mowbry explained
that an easement will be created, probably somewhere along
the property line, to get to the common area. Mr. Roudabush
expounded: "More than likely, it will come through the stub
street, and then down the property line the shortest
distance across the back of two lots that back up to Mr.
Jones' property."
Mr. Mowbry noted that he had attended the rezoning hearing
and he recalled that only Mr. Keith Jones, of those who are
now objecting, had been present at that meeting.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked staff to comment on whether not their
professional opinion regarding this proposal had changed as
a result of the public comment. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that the concerns noted would have been helpful at the time
of the rezoning. He pointed out that the applicant has
addressed all the requirements of both the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances. He concluded: "We can say with all
confidence that we have no reservation about the
recommendation as it is before you."
Mr. Blue concluded that the public was not opposed to the
development of the property, but primarily felt the lots
were too small, making it incompatible with adjacent
properties. He felt it was unfortunate that the public had
not made their concerns known at the time of the rezoning,
though he was uncertain whether staff's recommendation would
have been any different.
Mr. Blue pointed out that the County is currently in the
process of trying to get more affordable housing in the
County and "when you go to larger lots you meet higher land
/X
8-4-92 13
costs. It is the basis of planning to have higher densities
in concentrated areas where the water, sewer and
transportation is availabile. It seems to me unfortunate
now that we are running into areas that are right on the
fringes of the growth area where we are getting into areas
that don't want to be zoned high density, they are already
there, the houses are already there and they would like it
to stay more rural."
Mr. Blue concluded: "The way that staff has (recommended
approval) and the way it has met all the regulations, I find
it hard to see how the Planning Commission could turn it
down."
In response to Mr. Blue's comments, Mr. Bowling explained
that "specific reasons for disapproval have to be set out in
a written document or written on the plan and the reasons
for disapproval 'shall identify deficiencies on the plat
which cause the disapproval by reference to specific newly
adopted ordinances, regulations or policies and shall
generally identify such modifications or corrections as will
permit approval of the plat'."
Mr. Blue responded: "And if I understand what you just
read, we don't have that." Mr. Bowling replied: "If what
staff says is correct, that they meet all the requirements
of the ordinances, that's a correct statement."
Mr. Blue felt that the Commission had no choice. He stated
that unless he heard some very convincing dissenting views,
he would support the request.
Mr. Johnson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Blue. He
noted that the minimum lot size for conventional development
under R-10 is 4,356 square feet, and these lots are almost
double that size, some more. He concluded that there was no
reason not to approve the request because it complies with
the Zoning Ordinance. However, he added: "But I sure think
it raises a red flag that the Zoning Ordinance needs looking
at."
Mr. Grimm felt the reason the property had been zoned to
R-10 was in anticipation of the future development of this
part of the County and was looking to provide dense housing
close to the metropolitan Charlottesville area. He
concluded that he would support staff's recommendation.
Ms. Andersen moved that SUB-92-097, Brook Ridge Preliminary
Plat, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
/S
8-4-92
14
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations.
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant locations;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans;
h. Staff approval of open space easement documents to
include access to the open space.
i. Note area reserved for access to Tax Map 32, Parcel
33.
2. Staff approval of the final plat.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle stated she would support the motion, but she
stated she was sympathetic to the public concern. She urged
that the public must make their concerns known at the time
the rezoning is being proposed.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested to the applicant: "It might be nice
to put in a tot lot, somewhere around 23 or 24, for all
those kids."
The regular public hearing ended at 9:10 p.m. The meeting
recessed for 10 minutes.
WORK SESSION
CIP Overview - Mr. Cilimberg briefly called attention to the
upcoming schedule of work sessions. He also called
attention to the following:
--The requests for general maintenance which came from
the County Office Building, Staff Services, have been
combined into one request.
--Committees have already been formed to address
Americans With Disabilities requirements. other requests
may come later.
8-4-92
15
--An additional late request, from the Police
Department related to their communications system, was
distributed.
--Board of Supervisors and School Board was to meet
August 5 to discuss those requests.
--Joint Security Complex has not yet submitted their
request because of a recent change in administration. The
new Superintendent has not had a chance to review the
request as yet.
--Wayne Capagna will meet with the Commission on August
11 to discuss the E911 system rather than it being covered
by the Planning Department.
Commission comments and requests included the following:
--Mr. Blue expressed surprise that highways were a
greater portion of the proposal than education. He recalled
that that had not been the case in years past and wondered
if the County was now in the "highway business" with
education playing second fiddle to highways in the future.
He felt this was the first sign of turning into an urban
area.
There was a discussion about the funding of the Meadowcreek
Parkway and the County's road funding policy. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the road projects which are reflected in the
CIP are those which are in the Comprehensive Plan but which
the State has, to this point, said that they will -not build.
He stated that the Meadowcreek Parkway is in the CIP
because: (1) last year the Board of Supervisors mentioned
that, depending on when Meadowcreek could be built under
other funds, that it might be a project to be considered
from a toll facility standpoint; (2) so that it can be
identified by the State as a project that the County is
committed to do; and (3) in the event of a major
development, a developer could build part of the road ("But
it has to be in the Capital program if you want or expect,
under State Law, for someone to build part of that road.")
He explained that it has been included in the CIP for the
last two years, "at the end of the program," i.e. "it is not
something that the County has made a committment to fund,
other than to do planning studies." He explained that if
the State indicates that a road is eligible for State
funding, then it has not been included in the CIP. He
explained that the Meadowcreek Parkway is in the State
program for funding and construction in 1997. Mr. Johnson
expressed concern that the State could infer, from its
inclusion on the CIP, that the County would be funding the
Meadowcreek project and therefore not fund it. Mr. Johnson
stated that if the Board feels strongly that it be included
in the CIP then it should either provide him with enough
background to convince him to recommend its inclusion, or
else he will vote against its inclusion and the Board can
put it back in if it so chooses. Mr. Cilimberg concluded:
16-
8-4-92 16
"The reason it's in there is because there isn't a definite
committment from the State to build it."
--Mr. Blue felt the funding of the project had
tremendous tax implications for the citizens of the County.
He was also in favor of receiving comment from the Board on
this issue.
--Mr. Johnson wondered what had been the rationale
behind funding the studies for this road when none had been
allocated for studies related to the Bypass. (Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the Bypass was not a road which the County
had identified in any plan. All roads which have study money
allocated are Comprehensive Plan roads.)
--Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to request that the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors write a letter to the
Commission explaining why the Meadowcreek project should be
included in the CIP.
--Mr. Johnson asked for staff to supply the following
information in relation to the CIP project requests:
(1) Which items are mandated by Code?
(2) Identify those items which are associated
with public health and safety.
(3) Group similar projects together in the
interests of saving money on single contracts.
(4) What was the adopted CIP budget for'91-92 and
92-93?
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:00 P.M.
/6