Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 27 90 PC MinutesMARCH 27. 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 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; and Ms. Babs Huokle. Other officials Present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 6, 1990 were approved as submitted. CONSRNT AGENDA - Located near Batesville and consists of 868 acres. District- - Located near Lake Albemarle off Rt. 680 and consists of 186 acres. Addition to Kialoch Agricultural/ForlaRtal District Located near Cobham on Rt. 22 and consists of 63.4 acres. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. 7-MA-89-24 Phil Sansone - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 21.72 acres from R- 1, Residential to R-10 Residential (proffer). Property known as Wilton is described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 8 (part of), located on the east side of Rt. 20N just south of its intersection with Elks Drive (St. Rt. 1421). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The staff report concluded: "Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and is of the opinion that this request with its proffers is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Based on these findings staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-24 Phil Sansone." March 27, 1990 Page 2 In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about a proffer attached to an earlier action on this property which required connection to public water and sewer, Mr. Fritz explained that that proffer remained in effect. The applicant was represented by Mr. Ron Wylie, attorney, Mr. Charles Caldwell, and representatives of Amurcon Corporation, Mr. Jim West and Mr. Jim Swafford. Mr. Swafford gave a visual presentation describing Amurcon and similar projects the company has developed around the state. He stressed that the company still owns and manages all its projects --it does not divest itself of the properties. He explained that the company was founded with the "belief that the housing needs of the average Virginia family was not being met and the business has been successfully meeting these needs." Mr. West described the project in detail and that description included the following information: --The proposal is for 156 two and three -bedroom apartments on approximately 16 acres; --It is designed to meet the housing needs of a middle - income household, $15,000 - $28,000; --Rent for a two -bedroom unit will be $425/month and $470/month for a three -bedroom; --The rents are possible because of the Housing Income - Tax Credit Program, enacted in 1986 by Congress --no rent subsidy is provided; --Oversight for this program is by the IRS; --Financing requires that the project market to this income group, adjusted annually, for at least 15 years. He stated the proposal is "consistent with the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, previous Boards of Supervisors and Planning Commission discussions of this property in October and November 1988, and staff recommendations and discussions of this property." (Mr. West quoted passages from previous minutes, the Comprehensive Plan, and staff reports which supported this statement.) Mr. Wylie addressed the issue of planned improvements to Rt. 250. He stated he had been told by Mr. Jeff Echols of VDOT that improvements would be "from St. Clair Avenue (in the City) all the way out 250 to I-64." He explained the improvements which are planned, as related to him by Mr. Echols. He concluded: "Those improvements will definitely benefit this proposal." Mr. West summarized the applicant's presentation: "(1) Amurcon is an experienced builder and manager of apartments. (2) This proposal provides quality affordable rental housing for residents whose incomes range from $15,000 to $28,000. The requirement to provide affordable rental housing will last at least 15 years. (3) This proposal is Y/ March 27, 1990 Page 3 in the urban growth area. (4) This proposal for R-10 helps maintain the capacity for housing in the urban growth area, lessening pressures on the rural areas. (5) This proposal for R-10 is compatible with the adjacent proposed and existing uses. (8) This proposal for R-10 is buffered from the low -density residential proposed for land on the north line of parcel 58I. (7) The net density of the applicant's property would be approximately 6 dwelling units/acre. (8) Scenic quality preservation standards are met for this property. (9) The transportation recommendations are met for this property. Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. West to explain the discrepancy in his statement regarding 150 units, $15,000 - $28,000 target, for 15 years vs. 50 units, $18,000 - $28,000 target, for 5 years as stated in proffer No. 5. Mr. West explained: "The difference is our proposal is a competitive process. We need to submit our application which would compete with other properties. The applicant will be remaining with this property if our application is unsuccessful and would be bound by the proffer on the property. So we have 50 units that he is willing to market and proffer for five years regardless of the status of our application for financing. Our application goes beyond the bounds of the proffer. The origin of the five year period -- we took that right out of the Zoning Ordinance...." It was determined Mr. West was speaking on behalf of the applicant, but was actually the contract -purchaser should the applicant be successful in the request_ In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. West confirmed that if the request is not successful, the feasibility of the development would be seriously effected and his company would probably not proceed. Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation of the Housing Income Tax Credit. Mr. west explained: "The IRS and Congress administer a program that says an individual can get a tax credit --it's not a deduction --if they own property that is marketed to this income group.... So an individual who files their income tax can get a credit for their share of the ownership of this property." He explained that the credits are allocated by Congress based on the population of every state, thus it is a competitive process. He confirmed this was the justification by which the applicant could offer lower rents. He stated the IRS rules require 15 years. �2 March 27, 1990 P age 4 Mr. Rittenhouse clarified that was somewhat separate from the application, i.e. the application proffers 50 units for five years. Mr. Wilkerson noted: "The staff report indicated 217 units on 21.7 acres but in your report you said 156 units on 18 acres." Mr. West responded: The sketch plan behind you shows Parcel A and B. Our application is to purchase the Parcel A property. Parcel B is 'if this were built ... if this were rezoned to R-10, what might a plan look like?' Our contract is specifically limited to Parcel A. We don't know about Parcel B. We're just trying to give it a flavor of how the land could be developed." Mr. Rittenhouse asked about construction sequence. "Mr. West responded: "We would expect our timing from site planning, site processing --I would think late this year, early next year, before we would be ready to start construction. The fist would be 6 to 8 months from the time we start construction until the time we have units ready for initial occupancy." Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was trying to get an idea of "how quickly the density might accummulate in relation to the timing of the road improvements." Mr. Swafford stated that typically 24-28 units are turned over per month. He estimated it would be approximately 12 to 14 months from the time the work is started until the last unit is "turned over." Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted 1 1/2 to 2 years for completion. Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff when improvements to 250, from Free Bridge to 20, were anticipated. Mr. Wilkerson responded: "Three years from next spring." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed this estimate. It was concluded there would be a 1 to 1 1/2 year gap between the time this project would be completed and the time the improvements to 250 would be, in place. The Chairman invited public comment. Approximately 40 to 50 people were in attendance and expressed their opposition to the proposal. The majority of these people were residents of the Rt. 20 area --Key West, Franklin. Those who addressed the Commission individually were the following: Mr. Key Boyd, President of the Key West -Cedar Hill Community Association; Ms. Judy Vermillion; Mr. Howard Newlon; Ms. Marie Real; Mr. Tom Underwood, representing the Elks Lodge; Mr. Charley Kabash; Mr. Craig Vandecastle; Mr. Jack Vermillion; Ms. Karey Brazell; Ms. Susan Ferdalian; Ms. Molly Bruner; and Ms. Virginia Snyder. Their reasons for opposition were as follows: March 27. 1990 Page 5 --Impact of increased traffic on an already extremely congested roadway which would make an already difficult situation impossible; --Impact on already overcrowded elementary school -- there is no land available to expand the existing school; --Density requested is too high; area should only be considered on the "low side" of the zoning category; --Impact on scenic byway and the fact that this is a scenic byway could prevent improvements to Rt. 20; --Impact on an historic area; --Questionable timing of the improvements to Rt. 250 and possibility that improvements could be obsolete before they are even built; (It was noted that the plans for Rt. 250 were approved before the Westminister Canterbury development and before the Rivanna Park approval.) --Uncertainty about plans for Parcel B. Mr. Tim Lindstrom addressed the Commission and though he confirmed that he had supported the project previously (as a member of the Board of Supervisors), he noted two recent changes which have occured in state law which he felt should be considered before action is taken on this request: (1) The County now has the authority to accept cash or real property proffers from developers to offset the financial impact of development; and (2) The County now has the authority to regulate property which adjoins arterial roads which lead to a city or which lead to an historic site. (Mr. Cilimberg explained later that the amendments to the Ordinance to incorporate these changes have already been acted upon by the Commission and are presently awaiting action by the Board.) Mr. Lindstrom also expressed a great deal of concern about school impact. He noted that he did not oppose the concept of the project, but he urged the Commission to "take your time." He felt action should be deferred until fiscal impact data is available from staff and until the Ordinance amendments have been approved. He felt if deferral was not acceptable, then the application should be denied at this time. Mr. Rittenhouse felt there were two factors involved with the request: (1) The Comprehensive Plan recommendation for medium -density housing in this area. He stated staff has determined this development, as proposed, would meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The information presented by the applicant implies that the development would include a significant amount of moderate -income housing available for this site and a proffer would guarantee a more limited amount of moderate -income housing, i.e. 50 units guaranteed for a particular income target group for a period of five years. The possibility of a fifteen year period for the moderate -income housing is conjectural, though it would Y# March 27, 1990 Page 6 likely go forward. He pointed out the unknowns regarding the impact of the development on the County's infrastructure, particularly on roads and schools; and (2) The pace of the development in terms of impact. Is enough known about the impact of this development on the County's infrastructure at this time? Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the timing of the improvements to Rt. 250. He felt this was a very difficult question, i.e. weighing the advantages of a proposal which would benefit a section of the population which is targeted in the Comprehensive Plan against how the development would impact current residents of the County in terms of their transportation and educational needs. He concluded: "It's difficult for me to support the application given the questions that have been raised and the uncertainty, in my mind, of physical impact, impact on education, and the impact on the transportation network at Rt. 250 and Rt. 20." Mr. Grimm noted he agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse's concerns about the timing of the project in relation to the timing of the improvements to Rt. 250. Mr. Wilkerson commended the applicant for the proposal, but stated that the concerns raised by the public were valid ones. He felt that the proposed 10-unit/acre density was too intense and, therefore, he could not support the proposal. Ms. Huckle agreed with the concerns stated by fellow Commissioners. She felt the development was premature because of the unknowns related to the pace of the road improvements; possible negative impact on historical corridor overlay; and lack of information on fiscal impact. Ms. Andersen stated it was difficult not to support the proposal, given the importance of providing affordable housing. She, too, expressed concern about the infrastructure, particularly in relation to schools. She noted that she understood that proffers are voluntary on the part of the applicant; however, she suggested the applicant consider a cash proffer for schools, "that specific proffers be considered for housing that would be tied to getting the appplication, that specific proffers be tied to something compatible with the true historic district, not something less than the County already gets... proffers for a less intense density for the category." Mr. Jenkins noted that this public hearing gave citizens the opportunity to express their concerns. However, he stated: "But it's a fact of life, the closer you are to the city, the higher the density. The County has worked very hard to #f. March 27, 1990 Page 7 come up with a Comprehensive Plan which was passed last year with very little opposition. ... The density near the city, where there's water, where there's sewer, is going to be increased. ... While I think that the concerns which the citizens have are very valid, we have got to recognize -- we've seen a lot of growth and you're going to see it on Rt. 20, not because I'm going to put it there, but because somebody other than you owns the land and the land's valuable and the only way you get the value out of it is high density. So, coming here and saying you don't like it might satisfy your ego, and it encourages us, but the facts of life are still there...." Mr. Rittenhouse reviewed the options available to the Commission for dealing with the request, i.e. approval, denial or deferral (if it is felt more information could be made available by staff). Mr. Rittenhouse questioned whether staff could reasonably provide further information. Mr. Bowling asked that Mr. Cilimberg comment on the status of cash proffers. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission had already acted upon a proposed amendment to the Ordinance which would allow the County to accept cash proffers and real property and improvements off -site, as allowed for in State Code, Section 15.1-491.2:1. He explained that amendment is now waiting to be placed on the Board's schedule. He stated staff's approach, given limitations on staff, is to first establish the Public Facilities Plan (intended to establish facility needs and standards for development of all public facilties) and after completion of that plan, to then go to the private sector for a consultant to -develop a Fiscal Impact Study and model which is intended to provide information which would help answer questions such as those raised by the public tonight. He expected that information would not be available before the end of the year. He noted that deferral would not change staff's situation. He concluded by reminding the Commission that the only opportunity to make up for a development's cost is during a rezoning. Mr. Keeler added that this is only the second proposal for moderate -income housing which has been presented within the last 10 years, though the provision has been on the books since 1980. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-89-24 for Phil Sansone be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. �MW March 27, 1990 Page 8 - Proposal to create twenty-eight lots with an average size of 4,122 square feet. The lots are proposed on Austin Drive -and Wren Court in the Briarwood PRD. Property, described as Tax Map 32G, Parcel 1, is located on the east side of Route 606 south of General Electric. zoned Planned Residential Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's request, Mr. Tarbell pointed out the proposed relocation alignment for Rt. 606. He added that there are two lots which cannot be built upon until Rt. 606 is realigned, and staff is requesting administrative approval of those two lots. In response to Ms. Andersen's question about utilities, Mr. Tarbell explained that the development was served by public water and sewer. Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project, represented the applicant. He offered little comment except to say he was in agreement with the staff report. Ms.- Nina Harold, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the bonding of Briarwood Drive, she reminded the Commission that the applicant is trying to, provide affordable housing and for that reason the applicant would prefer not to bond Briarwood Drive since it is not in the development plan for at least three to five years. Mr. Reeler made the following statement: "Should the applicant submit a petition to have that condition changed... if the phasing plan is in enough detail and envisions the installation of the other recreational areas with specific phases of improvement, etc., we would probably request that you authorize us to approve all future subdivision, because there is really very little for you to consider in these reviews. He stated the only remaining issue in relation to the review of the subdivision plat is the building site issue which is now clarified in the Ordinance." He explained that he felt this would help keep the houses within the proposed cost range because it would prevent the delays involved with Commission review. He confirmed that the issue of bonding could be addressed with this approach also. Mr. Keeler stated he envisioned a revised phasing plan. Regarding the issue of bonding, Ms. Huckle asked: "You're saying that until this area is subdivided into lots that Lf~l March 27, 1990 Page 9 this road does not have to be bonded?" Mr. Keeler responded: "No. It has to be bonded right now. They need to get the Board to relieve them of that condition of the original zoning. Obviously, there will be some mechanism to occasion the completion of the road because it goes through property that's outside the development...." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that Briarwood Phase IV Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Construction or bonding of the entire length of Austin Drive to include relocation and improvements to Route 606; b. Construction or bonding of the entire length of Briarwood Drive to Route 29; C. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; d. Note on plat stating "No concrete pads, building corners, decks, porches or any part of a structure shall encroach on water and sewer easements"; S. Department of Engineering approval of road drainage plans and calculations; f. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; g. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; h. Department of Engineering approval of all required on -- site and off -site drainage easements plats; i. Dedication of right-of-way for the relocation of Route 606. 2. Installation of recreational facilities by August 30, 1990, and the final plat for Phase IV will not be signed until the facilities have been installed. 3. Administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The CgRoadg g Ereliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB-99-228) - Proposal to create nine lots from 112: acres. with an average size of 12.4 acres to be served by a public road. Property described as Tax Map 28, Parcels 33C and 33D, is located at Y' the end of Springwood Drive which accesses Rt. 609 wil March 27, 1990 Page 10 approximately 1.1 miles west of Free Union. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz explained that at the time of the revision deadline, Health Department approval had not been received, thus the report stated staff was not requesting administrative approval of the final. However, Health Department approval was subsequently received, so the Commission could grant administrative approval if it so desired. Mr. Fritz gave a brief history of the property. There was a brief discussion about access to the property. Mr. Fritz explained that the property has access via Springwood Drive which will be extended with Cascade Drive. He added that all the roads are intended to be public roads and the applicant has been working with the Virginia Department of Transportation in order to get Springwood Drive into the state system. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz explained the development rights of the property. (Note: Though Mr. Fritz stated this proposal would exhaust all development rights, it was later determined that there may be one right remaining.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Walden. Mr. Walden requested administrative approval of the final plat given the fact that Health Department approval has been received. The Chairman invited public comment. The following neighboring property owners expressed their concerns about the proposal: Mr. Rich Powley; Ms. Linda Powley; and Ms. Rosa McCallister. They insisted that at the time of the subdivision in 1985, they had been told that the property could not be further divided. They expressed concern about further subdivision in the future. They also stated that the road that had been constructed at that time, which crossed the Powley's property, was to be a state road and, to this date, it has not been taken over by the state and has not been maintained since it was constructed. Mr. Powley stated he had been maintaining the road. Ms. McCallister stated she had dedicated property for the road at the time of the original division. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. #9 March 27, 1990 Page 11 Mr. Fritz read a condition of approval of the original subdivision related to the road: "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations;" and "County Engineer approval of public road drainage plans and computations." In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Fritz stated there was no indication in the minutes of the previous hearing of a discussion of division rights. Mr. Keeler felt the Powleys and Ms. McCallister were probably confused by a note on the plat which states "No further division without Planning Commission approval." Regarding the issue of the existing road never having been taken into the state system, Mr. Keeler explained that bonds are handled by other departments. He stated he did not feel it would be inappropriate for the Commission to recommend to the County Engineer that no extensions be granted on any bonds for this particular road unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances. He explained that in the past the County has been too liberal in extending bonds, and as a result has encountered problems, He noted, however, that that policy has changed somewhat. Mr. Jenkins asked how long it might be before any work is done on the road. Mr. Walden explained that he had taken over the original and once final approval has been secured he will be able to proceed. He stated the bank is ready to bond the road as soon as approval is received. Mr. Keeler stated he would make the County Engineer aware of the Commission's concerns and also direct the County Engineer that when the new bond is posted for the road it is not to be renewed. Ms. Huckle asked if there had been no maintenance agreement for the road. It was explained that this had been approved as a public road, therefore a maintenance agreement would not have been required. Mr. Fritz added that part of the bond was to cover maintenance. It was determined there had been no maintenance on the road since constructed five years ago. There was a brief discussion as to how long it would take for the approval process to be completed so that the applicant could proceed. A discussion of development rights followed. Mr. Fritz had previously stated that the property had no further division rights. However, Mr. Walden disagreed stating there was one development right left and was stated under the land use note on the plat. Upon further examination Mr. Fritz .6 March 27, 1990 Page 12 explained that lot 1 may be further divided into a two acre parcel and a 21 acre parcel. Mr. Fritz confirmed this was a by -right development and was before the Commission because of the previous requirement that any further subdivision would require Commission approval. In response to Ms. McCallister's continued insistence that the neighbors had been told (five years previously) that there could be no further division, Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt there had probably been a misunderstanding. Mr. Jenkins added that there could have been changes in the Ordinance since the original approval, i.e. ordinances are not necessarily "forever." Mr. Jenkins moved that the Cascades Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Note 75 foot setback from all access roads on lots one and three; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; e. Department of Engineering approval of dam design; f. Staff approval of maintenance agreements for joint access roads. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There was further discussion of the bond issue. Mr. Keeler suggested: "When they get the road plans back --they're going to have to post a bond for the new construction anyway at that time --it's going to be more than the bond that they have, and that's the bond that should not be renewed and it should be for a reasonable length of time." The Commission was in agreement with this suggestion and asked staff to make the County Engineer aware of the Commission's desires. In response to Ms. Andersen's question as to who would maintain the road until it became accepted into the system, Mr. Keeler stated there is no requirement in the Ordinance that the applicant maintain a road until it goes into the system. He noted that this may be a flaw in the Ordinance. ::5rl March 27, 1990 Page 13 Mr. Jenkins moved that staff be granted administrative approval of the final plat. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Walden assured the Commission that he fully intended to pave the road. He stated the only holdup is VDOT approval. Village Nursing Home Landscape Pl-an - Mr. Fritz presented the staff report which explained that the Commission had approved the Preliminary Site Plan on September 26, 1989 and at that time had required that the landscape plan be reviewed by the Commission. The report concluded: "Staff has reviewed the landscape plan and is of the opinion that the plan addresses the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the landscape plan, conditioned upon construction of the berm during initial grading of the site." There was a brief discussion of the waste area. The applicant was represented by Mr. Craig Farnsworth. He introduced other applicant representatives who were also present. He explained the berm in more detail. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission_ Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the Village Nursing Home landscape plan be approved conditioned upon construction of the berm during initial grading of the site. The motion passed unanimously. Toringide 2 Site Plan - Request for Site Plan Extension Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that the Commission will review the final plan. He stated the applicant has stated the request for extension is being made because there is some question as to whether or not all tentative approvals will be acquired by April 11, 1990, the expiration date. Mr. Jenkins moved that the Townside 2 Site Plan be granted a 60-day extension, with the understanding that staff will review the plan under the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 6Z March 27, 1990 Page 14 Mr. Keeler explained that another County agency, the Department of Social Services, has requested that the ordinance be amended in order to bring the definition of family day care facilities in line with state regulations. He explained that the proposed amendment would permit licensed family day care homes --the keeping of up to 9 children --as a use by right. He stated these facilities would still be covered by state licensing requirements. Mr. Jenkins moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Family Day Care facilities be adopted. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Murray School Expansion - Mr. Keeler reviewed a memorandum explaining that staff intended to administratively approve the site plan for the Murray School expansion/renovation project, unless directed otherwise by the Commission. The Commission expressed no opposition to staff's handling of this issue. No formal action was taken. - The Commission agreed to bear the cost of commemorative cups and directed staff to proceed with securing the cups. Mr. Wilkerson stated Mr. Payne had agreed to pen the Resolutions of Appreciation and asked that staff supply him with accurate names, dates, etc. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. I DS V. W Cilimber9t:P cretary 36