HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 27 90 PC MinutesFEBRUARY 27. 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, February 27, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen;
Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development;
Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of February
13, 1990 were approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA - Lot 3Q. Block B. Section 8 Northfie ds
Subdivision - Because a letter of objection was received on this
item it was deferred to the March 20 regular agenda.
ZTA- 0-01 County of Albemarle - To amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance in Sections 33.3 and 33.3.1 in order to effect
the acceptance of cash proffers and real property dedication.
Mr. Cilimberg explained the proposed amendment and read the
proposed text. He explained that this amendment would bring us
into compliance with State Code.
In response to Mr. Jenkins' question as to how this would impact
the County, Mr. Cilimberg explained that it will allow the County
to accept cash from a developer who may wish to make such offer
as incentive for the County to grant a rezoning, provided the
zoning is, in fact, approved.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-90-01 be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval as submitted by staff (See attachment
A).
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
CPA-8S-03 Hollvmead - Request to amend the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan to expand the growth area boundary for the
Community of Hollymead, and change a land use within the
Community in an area on the west side of Rt. 29 North,
:W
February 27, 1990 Page 2
approximately one mile north of the Rt_ 29 Rt 649 intersection
(Brown and Spaid).
Mr. Benish presented the staff report in two parts --the first
part addressing the two requests for expansion to the eastern
boundary of Hollymead, and the second for a change in land use
designation within the existing Community (Townsend). Regarding
the expansion to the eastern boundary the staff was recommending
that the Board take no action at this time because if is felt
that the expansion is premature for the following reasons:
--Until a fiscal impact model is completed, it is difficult
to determine the true cost to the County in facility and
operational needs;
--Various candidate alignments for the Rt. 29 bypass bisect
each proposed expansion area;
--The Meadow Creek Parkway is shown in the CATS running
through this area;
--Specific service and facility needs which would result
from this expansion cannot be easily determined until
the Public Facilities Plan is complete;
--Proposed expansion should be reviewed in context with
the Open Space Plan which will establish the open space
needs and protection efforts for the County growth areas.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
(Before the applicants spoke, Mr. Don Peregoy, a resident of the
Proffit Road area, asked staff to point out the area in question
on the map. Mr. Benish complied. Mr. Peregoy also asked: "Do
you make use of eminent domain in this growth?" Mr_ Benish
responded: "No, sir.")
Ms. Terry Spaid was present to represent her parents. She
offered no significant additional comment.
Mr. Donald Brown addressed the Commission. He explained his
reason for making the request was his belief that the current
market demands more low -density housing.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Paulus asked for a clarification of the proposal, e.g.
what will the impact be on the existing neighorhood, is this a
proposal for a rezoning to include this area as part of the
growth area, or is it a proposal to make it a part of the
Hollymead Community with all existings restrictions? Mr. Benish
responded to Mr. Paulus' request and briefly explained the
proposal again. He concluded: "It is not a rezoning; it is not
a subdivision proposal of any sort. But rather a long-range
planning document which indicates future areas which may be
appropriate for certain levels of development. The level being
124
February 27, 1990 Page 3
requested is low -density residential," Mr. Paulus asked: "So
you are not, in effect, requesting that that area be zoned as a
subdivision away from its current status?" Mr. Benish responded -
"No. "
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed
their opposition to the expansion: Mr. David Morris (whose
property adjoins the Brown property); Mr. James Payne, a resident
of the Proffit Road neighborhood; Ms. Ruth Anne Markey, President
of the Proffit Road Neighborhood Association; Ms. Salley Thomas,
representing the League of Women Voters; and Mr. Dan Peregoy.
Their reasons included the following:
--Inadequacy of the roads to support more traffic;
--Negative impact on a unique and historically significant
community;
--Agreement with staff's accessment of the proposal, i.e.
that the expansion is premature until more is known about
the impact.
(See Attachment B for a copy of the statement read by Ms.
Thomas.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg once again clarified staff's position. He stated:
"We are recommending that you not expand the growth area at this
time. I think that's a definitive action on your part. It's not
that we'll delay this and consider it in six months. It's to
allow for further study and analysis that will hopefully lead to
a more thorough and educated decision at a later point in time.
We are not denying that Hollymead may need to expand some way in
the future, but we don't feel like that decision can be made
now "
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he agreed with staff's position. He added
additionally: "I think it's germane that both our economic base
analysis and the applicant's indicate that there is adequate
commercial and industrial land designated 'for the short term
planning period.' So I don't think this expansion is being
driven by a recognized short-term need." He concluded that he
supported staff's recommendation that the expansion not be
recommended for approval at this time.
Mr. Johnson stated he concurred with Mr. Rittenhouse. He added
the following related to the safety factor on the road: "I don't
think this Commission or the Board of Supervisors can abdicate
their responsibility to protect the safety, to the best they can,
of the population and that in itself would lead me to vote
against this."
_". Z
February 27, 1990
Page 4
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the expansion of the Hollymead
Community, as proposed by applicants Donald Brown and Terry Spaid
(CPA-90-01), be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
denial.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
At this time, Mr. Benish presented the remainder of the report
which dealt with the request by Mr. Jay Townsend for a change in
land use designation for an area located on the west side of
Rt.29 North, approximately one mile north of the Airport/Proffit
Road and Rt. 29 intersection. The staff report concluded: Staff
does not recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to
include a regional service designation in this area. The intent
of the Comprehensive Plan is to consolidate commercial activity
at certain locations in Hollymead and avoid further 'stripping'
of Route 29 with commercial development. Staff finds no unique
circumstance with this request which warrants a deviation from
this effort. The precedent set by approval of this amendment
would make it difficult to deny future requests for commercial
designations in areas not recommended in the Plan for such uses."
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Benish confirmed
that staff's recommendations "focus on the commercial aspects of
the request. Mr. Benish added: .There is no problem with the
contractor's portion of his request. That is consistent with the
industrial service designation. It is the retail/commercial
activity that's being proposed at that land use designation which
is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Benish
stated that the applicant may need to go through a rezoning for
his contractor's business, but it is consistent and would not
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Jay Townsend addressed the Commission. He described his
request which included a history and an explanation of his plan
for the property. He also described in some detail the property
as it presently exists. He felt the request was unique for the
following reasons:
--This is not a typical community service business because
it will be neither highly visable, nor will it generate a
lot of traffic and noise;
--The applicant is willing to proffer out undesirable uses;
--Utility demands are very low impact (i.e. water, electric-
ity);
--"This property is adjacent to a long --established, existing
commercial business and is therefore consistent with the
land use standards of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically
'to conr_.pntrate and cluster highway orientated commercial
February 27, 1990
Page 5
activity, to minimize traffic hazards and adverse visual
impact'."
Mr. Townsend explained that he had contacted most all the
neighbors in the area and had encountered no opposition to the
proposal.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Regarding industrial designation, Mr. Grimm asked: "Is there a
possibility that a stripping effect could occur along Rt. 29 as a
result of industrial development, or would that be very
unlikely?"
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It is
existing industrial uses in this
uses within the LI zone that are
amount to piecemeal development.
not have that."
possible." He pointed out other
area. He explained: "There are
not large-scale uses that could
So I won't say that you could
Regarding the contractor's office, Mr. Cilimberg stated: "It is
my understanding that the Zoning Administrator would need to look
at the use under LI for the contractor's office, but there might
be the opportunity for some very limited retail in association
with the contractor's office, (though) not of the scale of Ivy
Nursery. I don't know if that has yet been decided by the Zoning
Administrator." Mr. Benish stated it had not been decided and it
could possibly require a zoning text amendment.
Mr. Benish pointed out that as presently defined in the
Comprehensive Plan, the contractor's use is considered a
commercial use, but if the Commission feels it is otherwise,
perhaps some type of amendment other than a Comprehensive Plan
amendment should be considered.
Ms. Huckle asked if the County had the power to limit this
property to this particular use. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I
wouldn't recommend that --this is a Comprehensive Plan
(amendment)."
Mr. Rittenhouse felt staff's assessment was accurate. He agreed
that the issue of whether or not a commercial nursery fits this
category of zoning should be given some thought, but that is not
the issue before the Commission at this time. He cautioned: "Fie
have to be very careful that we would agree that commercial
application would be appropriate in that area to change the land
use designation to commercial there. I think we need to
remember, too, that commercial enterprises tend to foster other
commercial enterprises. Thev tend to act as a magnet. We have
A-44
February 27, 1990
Page 6
to consider very carefully (the issue) of precendent." He
summarized: "The issue that's before us right now is whether
commercial use is appropriate for this portion of the County. It
is not designated so at this time in the Comprehensive Plan and
we're being asked to change the Comprehensive Plan to label that
area for commercial use. If we do then we must be prepared to
find that this request is uniquely different when the time comes
to hear other applications for expanding that commercial area."
Mr. Cilimberg felt Mr. Benish's point about a possible zoning
text amendment, under the LI zone, might be one the applicant
would wish to pursue, though there is no guarantee that such a
request would be granted_
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was impressed with the applicant's "non-
professional site plan." However, he stated he could not support
the request as presently proposed, but he was interested in the
possibility of a zoning text amendment approach.
Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Wilkerson.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that Mr. Jay Townsend's request for a change
in land use designation in the Hollymead Community (CPA-90-01) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously
Colonial of Charlottesville Major Site Plan Amendment - The
applicant is proposing to delete 54 parking spaces and an
interior access road shown on the approved plan. Property is
located on the west side of Rt. 29 south of and adjacent to Rio
Hills in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property is
described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 94B and is zoned HC, Highway
Commercial.
The applicant had just informed staff (at this meeting) of their
desire for an indefinite deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the Colonial of
Charlottesville Major Site Plan Ampndmpnt be deferred
indefinitely.
The motion passed unanimously.
Wvnden Oaks Preliminary Plat - Proposal, to create three lots from
an 8.4 acre parcel to be served by a private road. Property,
described as Tax Map 58, Parcel BOB, is located on Rt. 25OW
approximately 3,000 feet east of its intersection with the C & 0
February 27, 1990 Page 7
r,
Railroad. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff recommends approval of the request for a private road and
is of the opinion this proposed subdivision will meet the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff recommends
approval of this preliminary plat (subject to conditions)."
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse`s question, Mr. Tarbell confirmed
this to be a "by -right subdivision in the rural areas."
Regarding the possibility of an easement being required for an
adjoining property owner to allow grading necessary for the
construction of the private road, Mr. Tarbell explained the
Engineering Department does not feel an easement will be
necessary.
Ms. Huckle asked if the Health Department would designate
building sites. Mr. Tarbell explained that the Health Department
will approve septic field locations but not building site areas.
He added that proposed drainfield areas are delineated on the
plat and the Health Department has approved those locations for a
primary and a backup septic field. Ms. Huckle asked if the same
notice was placed on each plat as had been placed on the Peacock
Hill plat, i.e. restrictions against building in designated
drainfield areas. Mr. Tarbell explained that is the reason for
requiring that the applicant delineate the drainfields on the
plat. (Mr. Tarbell stated he was not familiar with the Peacock
Hill project. Mr. Fritz explained that occasionally a note is
placed on the plat when there are restricted drainfield areas.)
Ms. Huckle asked if the property drained to Ivy Creek. Mr.
Tarbell was uncertain. He noted that the property in question is
several hundred feet from the stream and there are no streams on
this property.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked what would happen if the proposal is
approved and then it is later discovered that an easement from an
adjoining property owner is required and that adjacent owner is
not agreeable to granting said easement, i.e. "by approval of a
subdivision we are not guaranteeing (that development can take
place) --it would only be developed should VDOT approve all the
right-of-way improvements and a commercial entrance in accordance
with this condition of approval." Mr. Tarbell added: "And also
the Engineering Department would have to approve private road
plans and if the easement could not be obtained, it would, in a
sense, die." Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "fide would like to know
ahead of time if there are going to be easements required that
those easements can be acquired before we foster any kind of
J-14
February 27. 1990 Page S
action on our part and, in this case, what I'm hearing is that we
will go ahead and consider it under the belief that the easement
will not, in fact, be required. Should we be incorrect, and the
applicant be incorrect, then this situation will correct itself
somewhere along the road."
Referring to a letter which had been received from an adjoining
property owner which expressed concern about contamination of a
spring, Mr. Johnson asked who would look into this matter. Mr.
Tarbell again stated he was not certain of the location of a
stream but it would appear to be several hundred feet away. He
explained the Health Department has approved the septic fields as
drawn on the plan and he was uncertain whether the spring was
taken into consideration. Mr. Tarbell confirmed that
contamination of a spring would be the responsibility of the
Health Department. Mr. Cilimberg added that the Health
Department would consider the location of drain fields in
relation to drinking water supplies. Ms. Huck.le questioned
whether this would include a spring which provided water to a
pasture. Mr. Fritz stated the Health Department is supposed to
review the location of all water courses. He added that staff
could request that the Health Department pay particular attention
to this issue. Mr. Cilimberg stated this could be required
before final approval and that could be added as a condition.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ron Langman. He explained
the proposal and stated the houses will be sited specifically so
as not to impact the existing residences. Regarding the
drainfields, he stated: "We intend to hold with the septic
locations." He explained that the Health Department has already
extensively reviewed the sites and he felt sure the Health
Department would have been aware of the spring. He expressed
concern about the raw water main which crosses the property and
stated he had been very careful in the design of the road, and
the location of the building and drainfield sites so as not to
impact this water main. Regarding the remote possibility that a
grading easement will be needed, he stated the neighbors on the
right have indicated they would be agreeable. At the end of his
presentation, Mr. Lanaman made a plea for private vs. public
roads.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he confirmed the proposal
was for two new lots and a residue with the original house
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Lou Eaton, an adjacent property owner who had expressed
concern about contamination of the spring, addressed the
. 11
February 27, 1990 Page 9
Commission. He expressed his belief that the County should be
protected from spot development, though he conceded an owner's
right to use their property as they might wish. He felt the
property in question was some of the last "good laying land in
the Ivy area." He stated he was very concerned about the springs
which supply his wells. He was also concerned about the possible
conflict his farming operation might have with adjacent
residential development. He stated his major concern was the
location of the entrance because he felt the line of sight was
very poor. He stressed the dangerous alignment of the road. He
felt the safety of citizens travelling Rt. 250 should be of more
concern to the County than a developer's opportunity to make
money. He stated he would feel differently if the applicant were
planning to live on the property.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question as to how close the
development is to his spring, Mr. Eaton was uncertain but stated
he had two or three springs and it was probably a few hundred
feet. He again expressed concerns that the drainfields would not
impact his property or Ivy Creek.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Regarding the concern about the spring, Mr. Tarbell suggested the
following additional condition: "Health Department approval of
septic field locations based on the verification of those
locations as related to springs and any other water courses."
There was a brief discussion about the speed limit on this area
of the road. Ms. Andersen asked if VDOT could look into this
issue with the possibility of reducing the speed limit. She
explained she was concerned about the number of entrances onto
Rt. 250 and the safety of travel. Mr. Cilimberg explained
briefly VDOT"s present position in regard to lowering speed
limits, i.e. unless "based on volume or a particular traffic
circumstance in the area," there is demonstrated need for a
change, "they will not lower the speed from existing limits but
because the road was designed for those speed limits and people
tend to travel, according to VDOT, at speeds that the road allows
for and not speed limits posted along the roads." He stated,
however, that staff would certainly ask VDOT to look into this
matter because they have, on occastion, lowered speed limits. He
questioned whether that was a real possibility in this case.
Mr. Wilkerson questioned whether a 50-foot turn lane would be
adequate. Mr. Tarbell again explained that th ough VDOT has
recommended a 100--foot taper lane, the applicant is proposing a
50-foot taper and 50-foot turn lane, which is superior to a 100-
foot taper lane because "it will get the entire car off the
�st�
February 27, 1090 Page 10
road." He confirmed there would be a total of 100-feet. It was
determined the speed limit in this area is 55 mph, though it
changes to 45 mph beyond the entrance to the subject property.
It was determined the proposed entrance was at the crest of the
hill, coming from the east, up the hill. Ms. Huckle expressed
unfamiliarity with a 50-foot turn and 50-foot taper lane. Staff
explained how this works. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it is
a better condition than a 100-foot taper lane.
Addressing Mr. Eaton's concern about possible conflicts between
his farming operation and the residential use, Mr. Rittenhouse
pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan fosters agricultural
activity and he felt it would be extemely unlikely that the Board
would impose any restrictions on an agricultural operation based
on any resident's objections. He did not anticipate any negative
impact on the agricultural activity.
There was a brief discussion, instigated by Ms. Huckle, about
whether Mr. Eaton's land was in an agricultural/forestal
district. It was determiners Mr. Eaton was not in an ag/forestal
district.
Mr. Grimm moved that. the Wynden Oaks Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of subdivision
plans;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
C. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right. -of -way improvements and issuance of a
commercial entrance permit;
d. Twenty feet of additional right-of-way shall be
reserved for dedication along the property
frontage;
e. Staff approval of a private road maintenance
agreement;
f. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority review of
grading plan;
g. Health Department approval of septic field
locations based on the verification of those
locations as related to springs and any other
water courses.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
February 27, 1990 Page 11
Mr. Johnson made the following statement:
"I would like to make an observation for emphasis to my
colleagues on the Commission relative to the acceptance of this
plat. Specifically referencing the complete acceptance, without
controversy, of the use of a private road. As identified, the
private road has geometries which I sense are less than that
which would be provided by a public road. Under the terms, there
are conditions, the guidance of paragraph 1.4 General Provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance, an overriding consideration is public
safety. So by inference, we have accepted, and willingly, that
this road, with its limited geometries, will provide the
necessary public safety. I wish to draw your attention to the
fact that this is something that would never happen with respect
to the geometries of a public road as laid out, as determined and
established by VDOT and they support their claim for the
geometries which they require on the basis of those being
required to support public safety. This is diabetically (a;�
diametrically) opposite of that contradiction to that kind of
conclusion. And I think it should be recognized as such and will
be used at later dates when other issues come up."
It was determined that private road criteria, for less than 20
lots, is the County's criteria as established in the Subdivision
Ordinance. Mr. Rittenhouse concluded: "And the County obviously
feels that it provides a safe means of access." Mr. Cilimberg
responded: "It is believed to provide a safe, though not
necessarily preferrable--we would rather see public roads for a
combination of reasons but we have the allowance --the Board of
Supervisors has made their decision --it's there --and we follow
that and the Engineering Department follows that."
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the issue of public vs. private
roads was going to be studied in the near future.
Mr. Johnson stated: "My concern is, to reiterate, that we will
accept public road geometries as being safe. These geometries
are not acceptable to VDOT because they say they aren't safe and
there's that conflict which not only exists --which is prevalent
throughout the County and throughout the State which leads to
excessive cost in the development of roads and excessive
undesirable effect on the ecology of the land. This is the point
that I want to make. And as I mentioned a few sessions ago,
there is a special report I referenced from the National
Transportation Department which refutes some of the claims of
VDOT as to what is necessary to achieve the required safety."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked: "Are you saying VDOT says that the
private road design criteria is not safe, or are you saying that
they haven't said that it is safe?"
.4
February 27. 1990
Page 12
Mr. Johnson responded: "I am saying that by inference they are
saying it is not safe because they will not allow a road to be
built to those specifications and their reasoning is that they
are not sufficiently safe."
ZMA-89-24 Phil Sansone - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 29.59 acres from R-1,
Residential to R-10, Residential. Property known as Wilton is
described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 8 (part) and 581 located on the
east side of Rt. 20M just south of its intersection with Elks
Drive (St. Rt. 1421). Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred
from February 20th Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report included the
following: "The applicant's proposal does not adequately address
past concerns regarding rezoning of the property expressed by the
Planning Commission, nor does it reflect current staff
recommendation. Without a more detailed plan staff is unable to
adequately review this proposal, therefore staff cannot recommend
approval of ZMA-69-24 for Phil Sansone."
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about the basis for
staff's recommendation., Mr. Fritz explained. "At the time the
staff report was initially prepared we had no application or
sketch plan. Subsequently a sketch plan was submitted... and it
is our opinion that the time given us and the level of detail
shown on the plan is not sufficient." He added it was his
understanding the applicant would prefer that the Commission take
action, rather than defer the item. Mr. Cilimberg added that the
sketch plan was not proffered so it offered no guarantees.
Both Commissioners Huckle and Andersen indicated they would be
uncomfortable making a decision on this request since they had
not seen any of the material.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Chuck Caldwell. He
explained the applicant wished to proceed because of financing
deadlines. He felt that this project would be to the County's
advantage because it would provide housing for low-income
families ($16-$25,000). He stated an attempt has been made to
address staff's concerns and also to give staff an idea of what
will take place on the property. He stated the applicant has
proffered only one entrance to the property and Amurcon (contract
purchaser of the orooerty) is willing to abide by that. He noted
February 27, 1990
Page 13
that the proposed R-10 zoning is comparable to surrounding
development.
(Note: Mr. Fritz confirmed Mr. Caldwell's reference to a
previous rezoning on the property, ZMA-88-12, which proffered
only one entrance off Rt. 20).
Mr. Jim West, representing Amurcon Corporation, addressed the
Commission. He felt the request was consistent with the medium
density designation in the "master plan." He felt the
applicant's proffer in relation to screening would provide a full
screen from Route 20 unless the Commission preferred an
"ornamental screen." He explained the proposed development would
be the "lower part of the site which abuts a creek ... and the
tallest building will be below the level of the road frontages on
Rt. 250." He stated the apartments proposed on the lower part of
the site would have very low visual impact on adjacent
properties. He stated the applicant would like to be able to
discuss the road issues during the site planning process. He
explained the time constraints related to the financing of t•he
project.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. West stated the housing
proposed would be rental units with a proposed monthly rent in
the $400 range, excluding utilities. He confirmed children would
be accepted in the project.
Mr. Wilkerson asked about school impact. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that would usually be addressed at the site plan level. (Note:
Later in the meeting Mr. Fritz estimated the school impact would
be approximately 24 elementary students, 13 additional middle
school students, and 26 additional high school students.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Andersen asked if there was a proposed interchange in this
area "if and when an eastern bypass occurs?" Mr. Cilimberg
stated one of the alignment possibilities is in this vicinity but
he could not recall where it would cross Rt. 20, and he was
uncertain as to what the impact would be on this property.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he supported staff's recommendation because
he felt he had not had time to adequately review the proposal.
He stated he could not support approval.
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed. He quoted from the Comprehensive Plan:
to require unified planned developments for projects with 75
or more dwelling units." He stated if staff was not comfortable
with the proposal as presented, then neither was he.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-89-24 for Phil Sansone be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial
..-q4(—b
February 27, 1990 Page 14
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Department Qf Forestry (Alternative Site) - For information Only.
Mr. Cilimberg gave a brief history of this issue. He explained
the alternative site selected is located adjacent to Piedmont
Virginia Community College on the north and Willow Lake on the
east (Tax Map 91, Parcel 2, known as the Hillcrest property). He
also reviewed other sites which were considered. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that if this is site is developed, it will reduce the
residential area in the Comprehensive Plan by approximately 26
acres (over 100 potential dwelling units). The staff report
identified three advantages of the site and three disadvantages.
The report concluded: "Staff believes that if other sites
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are prohibitive, the
preferred site at Hillcrest is a reasonable alternative. It has
good physical development potential with the extension of
utilities, construction of a road system as proposed and
sensitive site design which considers the adjacent residential
areas. Use of this property for the office complex will
necessitate amending the Comprehensive Plan to show only this
property as Public/Semi-Public. Staff strongly recommends a
reaffirmation that the remaining Hillcrest property remain
designated for residential use as currently shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. Should this site be further pursued, staff
desires to work with the Forestry Department's consultants in
site design to assure impact to adjacent properties is
minimized."
Mr. Cilimberg explained the issue before the Commission as
follows: "Under Section 15.1-457 of the Code of Virginia, the
Forestry Department, a State agency, is providing you information
regarding this siting and asking for your input on the site.
They are not under any obligation to accept a recommendation from
you. It's more the idea of them letting us know what they're
doing and us letting them know our concerns and trying to
accommodate it in our Comprehensive Plan. This does not, in
fact, have to go to the Board of Supervisors though I believe the
Board will look at it. ... Tonight, any general comments you
have, as a Commission, not necessitating any action, they would
want to hear. If you have any strong feelings regarding this,
you should let them be known for the record."
Ms. Huckle asked if the rest of the Hillcrest property is under
one ownership. Mr. Cilimberg responded affirmatively and
explained that the entire tract is owned by Dr. Charles Hurt.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Craig Covey. He responded
to Commission questions.
e f%l
February 27, 1990
Page 15
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson asked staff to comment on a statement contained in
a letter from the applicant, i.e. "I feel this property should be
zoned for office use." He asked if this referred to all the
property. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I would imagine as much as
there could be. That's one of the reasons why we said what we
did in our memo to you. We anticipate you may be hearing more
from the property owner, that is the private landowner, regarding
designation in the Plan and that's not something we're supportive
of at this point."
Mr. Wilkerson stated he had visited the site and felt it was far
superior to the previous site.
Mr. Johnson expressed interest in the issue of the cost of the
site. He recalled that staff had stated the Worrell site was
found to be too expensive and he found it difficult to believe
that this site would have "been on the bargain table considering
the location and the owner." He noted that though it would
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, so would some of the
other sites. He stated: "Why it should not be in a rural area --
it should be in an urban area --I don't know why that should be a
controlling factor." He agreed that the compatability of office
and residential areas should be a factor of consideration. He
stated he accepted the determination that this site is far
superior to previous nominations, but "in viewing this and in
viewing another site which was proposed, I felt there was reason
to reconsider Site No. 1 on the southwest corner of Rt. 29 and
64." He noted that though that is a rural area, there is a
commercial establishment already there. (Mr. Cilimberg stated he
felt the parcel which had been considered was one parcel removed
from the one Mr. Johnson had in mind.) In any case, Mr. Johnson
felt the cost of that area would be less, it would not have the
disadvantage of competing against residential areas, utilities
could be extended, and there is access to Rt. 29 and I-64.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about utilities, Mr.
Cilimberg stated the selected site is very close to water and
sewer. She also asked how many personnel were envisioned.
Mr. Covey responded to Commission questions. He explained the
number of personnel will vary, but the facility will be called
"home" by approximately 125 -- 140 people, who are currently
living in this community and will be relocating here from their
present facility. Regarding the Rt. 29 siting, it was found that
the extension of water and sewer was a concern because it would
reach in excess of two million dollars. This was in addition to
the acquisition of the land. He noted also that it was outside
3444
February 27, 1990
the service area. He stated
given to moving it closer to
parcels in there which were
topographically suited, some
major ravine areas."
Page 16
also that consideration had been
the intersection but "there were
not large enough and were not
had been filled, and some were in
Ms. Buckle asked if it would look as depicted on the drawing.
with a lot of open space. Mr. Covey responded: "Yes. The
indication there is that the green area will be in some kind of
planting." He stated a more detailed site plan would come later
Mr. Rittenhouse commented: "I think there are some advantages to
this. The construction on the part of the applicant of a portion
of this Rt. 20/Avon Street Connector Road may somehow be an
impetus for the County to continue its planning and future
construction of that." (Ms. Buckle asked if adjacent property
owners would be expected to participate in the cost of this
connector road. Mr. Cilimberg stated it is hoped that there will
be more participation but none has been committed other than the
Forestry Department with this proposal.) Mr. Rittenhouse
continued: "...our consideration of this information in no way,
from my standpoint, implies a change of use on the part of the
Comprehensive Plan designation for this land. Despite Dr. Hurt's
letter, I don't suggest that this should be zoned for office use
and I don't believe the staff suggests that it be zoned for
office use. This will be an extension of the public/semi-public
use designation, an extension from PVCC, and it will be placed on
this property solely because of this particular use by the State.
In my mind, it neither implies nor encourages any other use for
the remainder of that property than what is currently designated.
I think the planning has been thorough and I would expect the use
for this property would be well thought-out and well done."
Ms. Buckle asked: "Do you want a consensus on that?" (There was
no direct response to this question.)
There being no further business,
10:45 p.m.
DS
the meeting adjourned at
V.-Wayne4 C i 1 imberg,:.-Se etary
1447-