HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 17 1991 PC MinutesSeptember 17, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 17, 1991, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman;
Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr.
Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler; Chief of Planning; Mr.
David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Rich
Tarbell, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning
Administrator; Mr. John Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator;
and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
September 3, 1991 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Tarbell, briefly previewed the Consent Agenda for
September 24. No action was required.
ZMA-91-04 Forest Lakes Associates - Request to rezone
236.212 acres from R-1, Residential, R-6, Residential and
PUD, Planned Unit Development to PUD, Planned Unit
Development. Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcels
26E, 27, 110, borders Powell's Creek on the east, Rt. 643 on
the south, Rt. 29 on the west and Hollymead Subdivision on
the north, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site
is located in the Community of Hollymead and is recommended
for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre)
and medium density residential (5-10 dwelling units per
acre).
Mr. Keeler presented a detailed staff report (a copy of
which is filed with this record). The report concluded:
"This rezoning request is consistent with the land use plan
for the Hollymead Community and the Comprehensive Plan
growth management policy of encouraging growth in designated
growth areas. Staff opinion is that this development will
not encourage additional development that would not
otherwise have occurred elsewhere in the County.
Consideration of the fiscal impact of development needs to
be balanced against considerations of the County's growth
management policy. Excessive development exactions could
have the effect of discouraging utilization of the holding
capacity of growth areas, and, thus, potentially lead to
accelerated development in the rural areas. Consistent with
identified County capital needs, it is recommended that the
applicant's proffers ... be accepted."
Mr. Keeler called attention to two additional proffers
submitted by the applicant. (A copy of the applicant's
proffers is made a part of this record as ATTACHMENT A.)
/?r
9-17-91 2
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He
compared densities permitted in the Comprehensive Plan to
the density reflected by the applicant's proffer and to
Forest Lakes North. He also described the fiscal impact
analysis performed by the applicant. Mr. Runkle presented
data showing that Forest Lakes had resulted in a decrease in
building permits in the rural areas .
The chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Richard Martin expressed concern about increased traffic
on the access road between Hollymead and Forest Lakes South.
He requested that the applicant be required to build the
road to Rt. 29 at the beginning of development so as to
eliminate the pressure on Hollymead Drive. (Mr. Keeler
stated he felt the developer would have no objection to this
request. He suggested that the developer could put this
intent in writing before the Board hearing. Mr. Keeler
added: "That was always our anticipation --that the 'spine
road' would be built, at least portions of it, would be
built ... before this connection would be made." Mr. Martin
felt a "parkway type road with a grass median between travel
lanes" should be given serious consideration.
Mr. Keeler described various scenarios related to traffic
patterns and future road plans.
Mr. Runkle commented: "I'm more than happy to agree to
build that connector road after the road from 29 is
constructed, as a matter of fact, I would agreed to build it
at the same time I can develop the commercial property....
But I'm not anxious to build that road anytime soon --the
Hollymead connector road, the one that was requested that it
be built subsequent to the other road coming off 29.
Whatever language would work I think we could agree to."
Regarding the possibility of a parkway -type road, he
explained that the traffic study indicates that there will
be sufficient right-of-way "into the middle of the entrance
into Section V" that will provide for the ability to build a
divided highway at such time the traffic volumes dictated
that need."
Public comment continued.
Mr. Fred Gercke, Proffit Neighborhood Association, addressed
the Commission. He explained that his main area of concern
was the 114 acres which has been "temporarily deleted." He
stated his organization continued to opposed a larger
expansion of the growth area which would include the 114
acres, but in the event of such expansion, he asked that a
If?
9-17-91
3
buffer be maintained between Forest Lakes South and Proffit
and that the area be developed at a low density. He also
asked that there by no access to Rt. 643 or Rt. 649.
Mr. F.A. Iachetta, an adjacent property owner, asked why
1,200 units should be approved if the property will only
reasonably bear 800 units. He also felt there was no need
for more commercial development on Rt. 29 North.
Mr. Kevin Cox called attention to a particular parcel in the
rezoning (4627 - 115 acres) which is currently being
assessed at a use value of $25,300 with taxes of $182 being
paid on the parcel. The fair market assessed value is
$749,000 resulting in a tax of $5,393. He pointed out that
if the rezoning is approved the parcel will be removed from
the "use value gravy train," but the county will only regain
the deferred taxes from the last five years. The parcel has
been in use value since 1979 and has been owned by land
companies since 1976. The taxes not paid betwen 79 and 86
are not deferred and thus are lost to the County, "the
result being that owners of non -eligible parcels and other
taxpayers are actually subsidizing developers' land costs."
He quoted From the County's Fiscal Resource Advisory
Committee's report, "subsidizing taxes in such areas is
counter -productive to the Comprehensive Plan's strategy of
discouraging development in rural areas and encouraging
development in growth areas."
Mr. Joe Fernholt, a property owner whose property will be
"encompassed" by Forest Lakes, addressed the Commission. He
asked if he would be allowed future access, across the
applicant's property, to the sewer and water lines.
Mr. Keeler explained that this would be a matter for private
negotiation between Mr. Fernholt and the applicant. Mr.
Keeler pointed out that the line is close to Mr. Fernholt's
property. He explained also that the Zoning Ordinance
authorizes the Albemarle County Service Authority, in review
of site and development plans, to require an applicant to
make provision for easement to adjoining properties. This
does not mean that there will be no cost to those adjoining
properties.
Mr. Runkle noted that the applicant would be happy to
provide such easements from mutually acceptable points.
Mr. Roudabush (comment from the audience) pointed out that
the Service Authority will require that lines be sized to
serve adjacent properties.
Regarding Mr. Iachetta's comments about requested density,
Mr. Runkle felt this was a "valid question." He noted,
9-17-91 4
however, that the applicant's objective was to allow
flexibility to react to market demands. He indicated,
however, that he was willing to reduce the 1,200 but he was
indefinite as to how much. Regarding the location of the
commercial area, he pointed out that access would be off the
"spine" road and not Rt. 29. He described the commercial
area as being office -oriented. He added that the applicant
would be willing to restrict types of uses.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle indicated she agreed with Mr. Iachetta's
statements regarding density.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the 1,200 requested was in the
medium range of what was allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the applicant anticipates that 800 will probably be
a maximum. He agreed this was a valid question. He
pointed out that the applicant has proffered a maximum of
1,200 units.
There was a brief discussion of the applicant's proffers.
It was agreed that No. 7 was not actually a proffer but was
more for informational purposes. Thus, it was decided there
were actually 8 proffers (6 from the applicant's report and
2 additional ones dated September 17, 1991).
Regarding the applicant's proffer related to maximum density
and its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Benish
commented: "It is at least a staff concern that the holding
capacity in the Comprehensive Plan and the overall densities
provided, that the opportunities to utilize those be
maintained as best as possible. Underdevelopment of
properties can ... actually have a detrimental impact to the
overall growth management scheme we have. ... To the extent
possible that the developer's allowed that flexibility we
may be able to achieve more development within our
designated growth area by keeping the flexibility in the
property." He suggested that the Commission consider the
impact of limiting development and lowering densities in the
growth areas during their deliberations. He also pointed
out that topographic constraints of the site will determine
what density is ultimately achieved.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt this was a valid point.
Mr. Johnson commended the applicant's proposal and stressed
the applicant's history of operations in the County have
been "impeccable." He stated he was willing to rely on the
applicant's "future decisions based on his past operations.
M
9-17-91
5
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the request must be considered on
its merit because the applicant could conceivably sell the
property.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt staff's position had merit, i.e. "to
allow the growth areas to develop, theoretically, at the
densities that are recommended by the Comprehensive Plan."
It was determined delineated wetlands would be a part of the
open space areas.
Mr. Grimm moved that ZMA-91-04 for Forest Lakes Associates
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
based on acceptance of the applicant's eight proffers.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 8:30 to 8:40
WORK SESSION
Comprehensive Plan Annual Status Report - Mr. Benish
presented the staff report. No amendments to the Plan were
proposed by the report thus a public hearing is not
necessary. Staff was requesting that the Commission comment
on the report and then forward it to the Board with an
endorsement of the recommendations.
Mr. Jack Marshall, representing Citizens for Albemarle, made
comments about the report which are attached to this record
as ATTACHMENT B. (Mr. Jenkins asked that Commissioners be
provided with copies of Mr. Marshall's statement. Mr.
Marshall agreed to this request.)
Mr. Keeler described some of the history of the Plan in
terms of how population distributions were arrived at.
Commission comments:
Mr. Johnson had the following concerns:
--Page 24, Table 28: He felt the figures in the chart
should agree with the text in order to be meaningful, or
should include footnotes explaining discrepancies.
--He felt the influence of the University should be
given more consideration and comment in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ms. Andersen moved that the Commission endorse the
recommendations presented in the report and that it be
forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
a0/
9-17-91.
WORK SESSION
Sign Ordinance - Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator,
assisted by Mr. John Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator and
Mr. Bill Haney, Administrative Intern, presented a very
detailed report which explained the problems with existing
sign regulations which have led to the proposed Ordinance
and also explained the process which was followed in the
development of the Ordinance.
The Commission did not have time to discuss the report at
length, but did comment briefly on some issues as follows:
--There should be a clearer definition of building
frontage vs. highway frontage.
--The tables need to be clarified further.
--Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about there being 2
sets of regulations (one for Entrance Corridor sites and
for other sites) in terms of safety and fairness.
--Mr. Johnson noted that a member of the BZA had
indicated to him that he felt signs should be a part of
plan review.
--Mr. Johnson noted that a member of the ARB had
indicated that that Board wishes to review the proposed
ordinance further.
--Mr. Jenkins had questions about "grandfathered"
signs.
one
site
--Mr. Jenkins expressed the feeling that possibly
situations which were "borderline" problems might be omitted
from the Ordinance in an effort to reduce the enforcement
workload.
Ms. Karen Tarentino, Manager of Fashion Square Mall,
expressed her support for the Ordinance in terms of Rt. 29N.
It was decided the Commission would hold another work
session to discuss the following issues highlighted by Ms.
Patterson:
--Interior window advertising;
--Illumination;
--Off-site signs (by special permit or by right?);
--Content in advertising message;
--Non-conforming signs;
--EC Overlay regulations;
--Corner sites.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:50 p.m.
V. Waynelollilim.Berg, Se tary
DB
FM