HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 10 90 PC MinutesAPRIL 10, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Rich
Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Grimm.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March
27, 1990 were approved as submitted.
SoMerset Farms Preliminary
- - Proposal to
create 24 lots from two existing parcels totalling 403.3
acres. Fifteen lots are proposed to be served by a public
road and nine lots are proposed to be served by a private
road. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcels 18 and 19A
are located on the east side of Rt. 20 approximately 2000
feet north of its intersection with Rt. 742. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas, in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
denial of the request.
Mr. Tarbell also called the Commission's attention to a
letter of opposition from Dr. Eagle. His reasons for
objecting included: (1) Poor design and utilization of the
property; (2) Incompatibility with adjacent uses; (3)
Location of scenic highway; and (4) Inadequate groundwater
supply in this area to support such a development.
Mr. Johnson questioned whether the application should be
heard by the Commission since the applicant had not
submitted a written justification for a private road as
required by Section 18-38(h).
The Chairman determined that the request would be heard, and
that Mr. Johnson's observation would be kept in mind during
the consideration of the application.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gary Summers. He began
by stating: "The applicant never has requested review of
this subdivision plat as a private road subdivision. ... It
has never been the intent of the applicant, nor myself, as
73
April 10, 1090 Page 2
an engineer, to submit this as a private road subdivision.
... This subdivision plat is a plat in which every lot is
legally served by a public roadway." He indicated that
staff had informed the applicant that the road must meet
private road standards. (Mr. Keeler interjected: "If
that's the applicant's position, our report is based on this
being a private road and you may just want to defer this and
we'll get with the County Attorney's office on this matter
because we maintain that it is a private road and we
maintain that you have to approve it under private road
provisions....I'd like to see the applicant's opinion, in
writing, as to why it is not a private road.") There was
some confusion as to which road Mr. Summers was referring
to. Mr. Summers explained: "It's the access by which a
building site on the lot can be accessed --it is the access
only to building sites -it is not the access to the lot. It
was never intended to be the access to the lot. The public
roadway is the access to each of the lots already in the
subdivision and if it were not for staff's recommendations
just in this round of comments that other lots take access
from this, there is no problem in accessing everything from
the public road internally or on Rt. 20."
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed confusion as to why the road was
there if there was no intention to use it for access to the
building sites on top of the mountain. Mr. Summers again
repeated that "every lot in the subdivision is served by a
public roadway... Roadway A." He added: "It was at County
Planning Department's direction that the applicant has
pursued the private roadway in order to meet the
requirements for safety and health reasons to enable people
to access other building sites within the lots." Mr.
Rittenhouse interpreted: "Staff's position was that the
public road didn't provide safe access to the building sites
on the top of the mountain on these lots and therefore an
alternate means of access was required?" Mr. Summers
explained: "The applicant had initially stated that he
would access through the private access easement the
alternate building sites at the top of the mountain. The
Planning Department told the applicant at that time that he
would have to meet private roadway standards for that access
roadway. That is what's been done."
Mr. Summers continued his comments and explained the
requirements for the turning radii on the switchbacks. He
stated that though the applicant is willing to meet an 80-
foot radius requirement, there are other ways to obtain
adequate sight distance. Regarding location of drainfields
in 25% slope areas, he explained that only an extreme edge
April 10, 1990 Page 3
or a corner of a drainfield is at 25%. He explained in
detail how soil tests had been taken and how Mr. Gooch had
located drainfield areas. He concluded: "So the entire
drainfield is at slopes less than 25%...." He stressed that
there was no intent to "require a variance in any way, form,
or fashion." (Mote: Mr. Keeler attempted, unsuccessfully,
to clarify Mr. Summers' explanation.) Mr. Summers
questioned why the County Ordinance "discourages"
drainfields in slopes of 20% or greater if the Health
Department has approved drainfields in these areas. He did
not understand why a variance is required in such cases.
Regarding the issue of water, he stated the applicant is
aware that an adequate well must be determined for each site
before the development goes forward. He stated: "It was
stated in writing to the Planning Department that the
applicant would, indeed, insure that water supply is
available for each lot or a fully engineered and approved
private central water system be provided as an alternate to
the private well on each lot."
Mr. Richard Carter, attorney for the applicant, addressed
the Commission. He gave some background information on the
road issue. He also described how a potential lot owner
might go about choosing a building site. Regarding the
issue of written justification, he stated the applicant has
filed numerous papers with the County which could meet the
criteria of justification. He did not feel the nuisance
issue had foundation because the proposal was not creating
the nuisance, the nuisance was on the existing adjacent
properties. He concluded that the proposal had met all the
requirements of the Ordinance at its inception, but it had
been changed to add the private access at staff's request
and as a result, the applicant spent a lot of time and money
to comply with staff's wishes, and now staff is complaining
because they don't like the private road. He stated the
applicant has done all that is possible to reasonably comply
with the Ordinance, the staff, and the Comprehensive Plan
and he asked that the Commission approve the request.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing the Piedmont Environmental
Council, addressed the Commission. He stated his
organization viewed this application as one of major
significance in terms of the application of the Subdivision
Ordinance and the waivers that are inherent in this
proposal. He referred to the fact that the Ordinance
addresses the issue of odd -shaped lots. He felt a lot which
is ten times longer than it is wide is odd -shaped. He felt
staff's analysis of the environmental impact of accessing
the top was correci. He stated the main flaw of the plat
was developing on top of the ridge. He felt the combined
%-6-
April 10, 1990
Page 4
effect of environmental problems, public safety and health
problems associated drainfields on steep slopes, water
problems, and the problems associated with this type of road
construction gives the Commission the authority to deny the
plat, or at least to designate on the plat where the
building sites will be, i.e. those which can be easily
accessed from the public road. He felt this proposal was
clearly designed to maximize profit at the expense of public
interest. He noted that this was probably the most
prominent ridge, close enough to be appreciated, in the
entire county. He added that the property is in a rural,
historic setting on a scenic road.
Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters,
read a statement of opposition which is made a part of this
record as Attachment A.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the private
vs. public road issue.
Mr. Bowling responded: "I think it's staff's position that
they have been dealing with a private road issue. You're
confronted with two issues here: (1) The applicant's
saying this is a loop hole --'I've carved up my lots, I'm on
the public road and I've got legal lots with access to the
public road because they abut upon the public road.' I
think staff will say that that's a subtrafuge of the intent
of the Ordinance." Mr. Rittenhouse asked: "So you see
nothing inconsistent with staff's approach?" Mr. Bowling
replied: "No, I don't.`
Mr. Keeler commented on the history of the review, including
the issue of the private road. He explained that when staff
had become aware of the fact that soil studies were done on
the mountaintop lots, the applicant had been informed that a
different review would be needed and a private road would be
needed to serve the mountaintop lots. He disagreed with Mr.
Carter's earlier statements, i.e, he recalled having told
Mr. Carter that the applicant would need to demonstrate that
building both a public and private road would be more
environmentally sensitive than a public road alone. He
stated: "If the applicant's position is that this is not in
fact a private road, we'd like something in writing that we
could sit down and review with the County Attorney's Office
as to why in their opinion it's not a private road. It's
clearly the main means of access to the top --the public road
is not providing access to the building sites at the top of
the mountain." He added that he felt the Commission had the
7(
April 10, 1990 Page 5
right to restrict building site location under Section 4.2.
Mr. Keeler briefly reviewed the reasons staff was
recommending denial, i.e. the three issues related to
private roads and the fact that staff was presented with no
evidence that five of the lots have building sites. Mr.
Keeler also pointed out that if the road is not a private
road, staff would recommend denial based on odd -shaped lots
and on the current building site provisions.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Somerset Farms Preliminary Plat
be denied based on those reasons identified by staff, i.e.:
--Neither proposed private road alternative is in
accordance with the design standards of Section 18-36(e) of
the Subdivision Ordinance;
--Neither proposed private road meets the intent of
private roads as stated in Section 18-36(a);
--The lack of adequate justification for the private
roads as required by Section 18-36(b);
---Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21 do not meet the
requirements of an adequate building site as required by
Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
(Mr. Johnson felt lots 12, 13, and 14 should also be
identified as having inadequate building sites.)
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he felt the applicant's intention
as to the location of building sites was clear, i.e. sites
on both the top and bottom of the mountain. He concluded
that he agreed with staff's assessment of the road issue and
he also agreed that justification for a private road had not
been demonstrated. He noted that though it may be
technically correct that the lots front on a public road, he
felt the intent of what was being proposed was different
than the technicality. He felt the mountaintop sites could
not reasonably access the public road, and therefore a
private road is necessary for what has been presented.
Mr. Johnson stated that he felt not only the issues
identified by staff were important, but also the aspects of
Section 4.2 Critical Slopes. He noted this included the
environmental effect of development of the top of the
mountain.
Ms. Huckle noted that aspects of health, safety and general
welfare are a concern with mountaintop building in terms of
77
April 10, 1990 Page 6
fire protection and adequate drainfields.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted also that he looked forward to the
approval of provisions which would allow the County to deal
more clearly with mountaintop/ridgetop development.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if more information could be obtained
about water availability. Mr. Keeler indicated this is a
difficult issue, but noted that good wells are less likely
on top of a solid rock mountain. He recalled problems which
had been encountered in the Ashcroft Subdivision which had a
similar geologic makeup.
It was noted that the Commission could view the proposal
more favorably if the building sites were relocated from the
mountaintop to sites which were readily accessible by the
public road OR present the proposal as a rural preservation
development.
The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
BeauMont Farm Phases Iand II Preliminary Plat - Rural
Preservation Development to create a 40.4 preservation tract
and nineteen development lots averaging 23.16 acres in Phase
I. Phase II consists of nineteen development lots averaging
2.68 acres with a 40.2 acre preservation tract. The lots
are proposed to be served by a single public road.
Property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcels 3, 3C, 3D, 3E,
3F, 3G, 3H, 3J, 4D, and 4D1, are located on the east side of
Route 676 approximately 3/4 of a mile west of Route 660.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval, subject to conditions. In addition to the staff
report, Mr. Tarbell explained the issue of development
rights in more detail. He noted that this is a by -right
subdivision.
In response to Mr. Johnson's questions about the status of
the internal road, Mr. Tarbell explained that it will be a
public road and the Engineering Department has stated that
with minor modifications it can meet new subdivision street
requirements. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about
maintenance of the road until it is taken into the state
system. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that would be addressed at
the time of the final site plan review. Mr. Keeler noted
that the Ordinance requires that a bond will be posted.
April 10, 1990 Page 7
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Osborne, Engineer
for the project. He listed the advantages of the
development. He described the design of the project and the
reasoning behind the design. He asked that the Commission
approve the plan in accordance with the staff report.
Mr. Fred Payne, also representing the applicant, addressed
the Commission. He explained the proposal in some detail,
explaining that this is technically two applications. He
confirmed that the applicant is aware that a bond will have
to be posted for bath the maintenance and construction of
the road if it is not completed before the signing of the
final plat. He stated also that the applicant recognizes
that a 200-foot setback applies. He praised the staff for
the development of the rural preservation provisions. He
stressed that the developers had made a very conscious and
sensititve attempt to comply with the intent of the
ordinance and to forward the objective of the preservation
of rural land.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. David Watson, owner of property directly across the
river from the proposed development, addressed the
Commission. He expressed his support for the proposal and
noted his only concern was one of visual quality. He asked
that the County consider adopting provisions addressing the
protection of visual resources and he asked that the
developer address this concern though deed covenants.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom addressed the Commission. He expressed
his support for the rural preservation provisions but noted
his concern about the densities and the "rights allowed by
the Zoning Ordinance." He felt the fact that the maximum
number of development rights will always be sought could be
a potential problem and should be considered when Ordinances
are reviewed. He felt policies should be created which
would help to avoid "an abuse of the rural preservation
option wherein land is artifically divided, or parcels under
common ownership are artifically sold into separate
ownership, a phased proposal is brought in where we see part
of the ultimate development at one time and then the rest
either comes in as a separate phase, which was the honest
approach in this case, or really in another couple of
months, as a separate phase and separate time." He felt the
intent of the rural areas zone was to have special permits
for this size development as a cohesive adjoining contiguous
development. Regarding the issue of open space, he was
under the impression that the Ordinance requires that "the
open space be dedicated under permanent conservation
7q
April 10, 1990 Page 8
easement to the County and to the Albemarle County Public
Recreational Facilities Authority." He suggested to Mr.
Bowling: "2 would just suggest as you review the easements
that are proposed to comply with that section of the
Ordinance... in default of either holder continuing to be in
existence or being deemed a valid holder of an easement
under the Open Space Land Act that easements provided in
default, that the easement automatically revert to the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation."
Mr. Reeler noted that there is language which precludes
people from dividing their properties up now and then coming
in with a rural preservation development.
Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters,
addressed the Commission. She stated that though the League
was not opposing the request, it did have concerns. Her
comments are made a part of this record as Attachment B.
Ms. Linda Burch, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission and expressed her opposition to the proposal
because she felt it would negatively impact her property and
the watershed.
Ms. Sue Smith, a neighboring, though not adjoining, property
owner addressed the Commission. She expressd her opposition
to the proposal because of concerns about reservoir
protection.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked what restrictions would be placed on
the owner of the rural preseration tract. Mr. Tarbell noted
that the staff report had stated that the open space was to
be maintained in a natural state, not to be developed with
any man-made feature. He noted that on the plat itself the
200-foot building and septic setback would be noted.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the Commission could restrict what
is allowed in the 200-foot setback. Mr. Reeler indicated
this has been "tricky" because people continued to put docks
into the reservoir. He stated he felt the Commission could
prohibit that on County property, but not on the City's
property. Mr. Robertson, the Watershed Management Official
explained that "it's Rivanna leased property, so Rivanna has
a boat permit policy that applies to boat docks on the
reservoir." He explained how this permit process works. Mr.
Tarbell pointed out that on the eastern side of the rural
preservation tract there is a strip which the City owns.
Mr. Robertson added that the policy, for a development such
April 10, 1990
Page 9
as this, is that gne dock would be permitted to serve all
the residents.
Mr. Huckle expressed concern about the possibility of a road
being needed to reach the dock. She expressed the hope that
the easement agreement would explain clearly the definition
of "undisturbed, natural condition." She stated it was her
intent that the existing trees, vines, bushes, etc. would
remain in their natural condition so as to act as a filter
for runoff from development activity. Mr. Bowling stated he
did not know how much clearer it could be stated other than
simply "natural state."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if that language would conflict with
uses which could be permitted in the open space. He noted
that the Ordinance, as written, could permit wells and
septic systems for emergency use only and non-commercial
recreational structues and public utilities. Mr. Bowling
replied: "Sure there's a conflict." Mr. Rittenhouse asked:
"So you think the words 'undisturbed open space' would
preclude those uses and there would be no need for the
Commission to try to condition those uses out?" Mr. Bowling
stated: "If you want to preclude it, you should state so."
Mr. Reeler pointed out that the introductory language in the
Ordinance is "Unless otherwise permitted by the Commission
in a particular case, open space stays natural." He
explained that the four possible allowances listed are
suggestions and the Commission could prohibit those with the
exception that staff recommends that public utilities not be
excluded.
Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation of the difference of a
wildlife sanctuary and a game preserve. Mr. Keeler was
uncertain of the definition. Mr. Huckle suggested that game
preserve be removed.
Mr. Johnson stated it was his understanding that the
applicant would have to seek Commission approval before any
of the four possible uses could be allowed. Mr. Rittenhouse
stated that was correct, but the restrictions could be
included at this time.
Mr. Payne stated he felt it was important that the
Commission give the applicant guidance as to their concerns.
He stated he understood that the Commission did not want the
open space cleared, and that there be no substantial
development in that area. He felt he would be able to work
out a satisfactory agreement with the County Attorney. He
expressed a fear about the Commission getting too
April 10, 1990 Page 10
restrictive in the event that it might be too restrictive on
some things and omit others.
Mr. Johnson suggested that "this statement" be included in
every deed applicable to this property.
Mr. Payne stated that the Ordinance requires a recorded
document in the Chain of Title. He explained the usual
practice is to "recite at least generally that the
conveyance is subject to restrictions of record." He
continued: "I will tell you that whether the deed says that
or not, it is subject to those restrictions. These
restrictions won't derive from this meeting; they will
derive from the document that is the product of what you are
talking about and that will be of record, will be in the
Chain of Title, and will be binding on the developer, and
all his successors."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the BeauMont Farm Phases I and II
Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. Staff approval of conservation easements;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion
control permit.
e. Department of Engineering approval of all required
on -site and off -site drainage easement plats;
f. Dedication of 25 feet of right-of-way from the
centerline of Route 676 together with such
additional right-of-way as necessary to construct
the turn and taper lane;
g. Staff approval of sight easement across Lot 2;
h. Note on the final plat that all lots shall access
internal road only.
2. Administrative approval of the final plats.
(Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Wilkerson if he intended that his
motion not include any restrictions about the open space.
Mr. Wilkerson replied: "No. I think right now it's
overkill; we don't know what we may or may not create.")
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed for 10 minutes.
9.2
April 10, 1990 Page 11
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rearrests - Requests for
Resolution of Intent from the Planning Commission to study
amendment proposals to the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan. A total of four (4) requests have been made:
CPA-90-01 Wendall Woad - Request to amend the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan to expand growth boundary for
Neighborhood Four along the east side of Route 20.
Mr. Benish explained the issue before the Commission, i.e.
to determine if the Commission wishes to adopt a resolution
of intent to amend the plan as requested and whether the
request by the applicant merits further staff review.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report which concluded:
"Staff does not recommend the Commission entertain any
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests in this area until the
Blue Ridge Neighborhood Study is completed and approved."
The report stated further: "Staff sees no compelling change
in circumstance that warrants reconsideration of expanding
the Urban Area, particularly for land use designations more
intensive than those rejected previously by the Commission."
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission.
He corrected that the request was for 200 acres rather than
275 and for both low and high density. He explained the
reasons for the request.
--He felt it was logical that the County should begin
expanding to the south.
-Water and sewer is reasonably available to the
property.
--The property is very close to the urban area.
--Will improve the quality of the southside of town.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom addressed the Commission. He felt this
request should not be considered for the following reasons:
(1) It has recently been determined that the east side of
Rt. 20 is not suitable for development because of the
location of Monticello and the inability to draw an
effective boundary line and no change in circumstance has
occurred to warrant another review at this time; and (2) A
reconsideration is a major undertaking and there is no
significant reason to make this study again at this time.
He added that the topographic features of Rt. 20 in this
area are very difficult. He noted that approval of this
request would require a change in the jurisdictional area.
a
April 10, 1990 Page 12
Mr. Lindstrom also explained the reason for the Blue Ridge
Community Study.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's
comments and, therefore, could not support entertaining this
request at this time. Mr. Wilkerson moved that CPA-90-01
for Wendell Wood be denied.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins asked for clarification as to whether or not
this area would be included in the Blue Ridge Study. Mr.
Benish stated it was not intended that it be included in the
study but the study will be cognizant of the impact on this
area.
Mr. Johnson asked if the study being done by the City and
County in relation to "gateways" to the area, might have
some effect on this area. Mr. Benish replied affirmatively.
Mr. Jenkins noted that this area is outside the watershed
and though it may be on the wrong side of the road, he felt
"the guidelines for proceeding in this way have to come,"
and he was under the impression this was an area which has
been designated for growth.
Mr. Benish agreed that this had been identified as a
possible expansion area, but several other areas were also
identified. He added that these expansion areas must be
looked at as very valuable commodities, given the County's
growth management policy, and they cannot be dealt with
haphazardly.
The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
CPA-90-02 Wendell Wood - Review for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan for an area in Neighborhood One, west of
Rt. 29, and north of Berkmar Drive Extended and Hilton
Heights Road.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report explained
the request was "to determine the consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan of a rezoning request for HC, Highway
Commercial zoning for property north of Hilton Heights
Road." The report concluded: "It is staff's opinion that
the boundaries for the land uses designated in the Plan are
0
April 10, 1990 Page 13
based on the existing proffered zoning for these properties,
which have been reviewed and modified several times over the
past several years. Staff is concerned with the potential
loss of anticipated residential acreage with this rezoning
request. Designation of adequate area residential use was a
prime concern during the review process for the
Comprehensive Plan update. Staff opinion is that the
rezoning request is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, and staff would not recommend further study of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment."
Mr. Benish explained that there was a point of contention
between the applicant and the staff as to the exact location
of the boundary line for the residential area. Mr. Benish
noted that nothing in the Comprehensive Plan definitively
describes where the boundary line falls, but staff has
always considered it to be the zoning line. He noted that
approximately 12 acres would be effected by this land use
designation.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Benish commented
on plans for Berkmar Drive extension.
Mr. Wilkerson asked on what grounds the applicant based his
interpretation of the boundary line. Mr. Benish explained
that it was based on a statement in the Comprehensive Plan
that "commercial activity was to be limited to areas east of
Berkmar Drive Extended and residential areas were to remain
west of Berkmar Drive Extended." He explained that the
Commission and the Board had made that determination
consciously "bearing in mind the development of this roadway
and the properties that abut that roadway." He pointed out
that this property does not abut the roadway --it has no
frontage on the roadway. He also noted that "we did not
assume that that condition extended beyond Berkmar Drive,
but that is the way the applicant has interpreted it." He
stated the matter is before the Commission because "staff
and the applicant are at an impasse."
Mr. Benish explained that if the Commission feels the
applicant's request is consistent with the Plan, there is no
need to adopt a resolution of intent for further review.
However, if the Commission is in agreement with staff's
position, then the request is not in compliance with the
Plan and the Commission would need to determine if further
study is desirable.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated the central question as follows:
"How does one interpret the Comprehensive Plan to know what
is intended for land use regardless of what the current
zoning is?" Mr. Benish stressed that the Commission should
gg—
April 10, 1994
Page 14
bear in mind that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a
guideline and flexible in nature.
In an attempt to clarify the issue before the Commission,
Mr. Benish explained: "You need to determine where you
think the boundary between the high density residential and
the regional service designation falls on the land use map
and whether the interpretation of the applicant is, or is
not, generally consistent with the Plan. If you determine
that it is not consistent, you need to make a determination
regarding further study."
Ms. Huckle asked if staff had been consistent in the past in
following the zoning divisions as boundaries. Mr. Benish
responded affirmatively. He went on to explain that an
attempt is made to base zoning boundaries on natural
features. Mr. Benish explained that it was intended that
the Plan would reflect generally the zoning that was "cut
there, but to define it as to the way we would prefer
development to occur.,
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. Regarding the
road, he pointed out that the alignment had been designed by
Bill Roudabush at the request of the County and was not the
applicant's design. He explained the reasons for the
applicant's interpretation based on the statement in the
Plan (as noted earlier by Mr. Benish). He explained which
parts of the roadway (Berkmar Extended) he would build. He
felt the proposal was in compliance with the stated intent
of the Comprehensive Plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse listed the following possible actions for
the Commission to consider: (1) Decline to consider the
CPA and agree with the applicant's interpretation of the
Comp Plan's land use designation boundary; (2) Decline to
consider the CPA and agree with staff that the Comp Plan
land use designation boundaries are coincidental with the
zoning lines; or (3) Determine that the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan is unclear and therefore further study is
warranted to determine where the lines should be. He
pointed out that though the request for a CPA implies that
it is a Comp Plan amendment, it could just be a Camp Plan
definition.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he supported staffs interpretation of
April 10, 1990
Page 15
the boundary. He noted that he could not support removing
this much R-15 property unless it could be replaced
elsewhere. He also indicated that he did not feel Berkmar
Drive would alleviate traffic problems on Rt. 29 to any
substantial degree.
Mr. Benish pointed out that if the Commission agreed with
Mr. Wilkerson, then a determination should be made as to
whether or not to entertain a resolution of intent to amend
the Plan to reflect the applicant's request.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated this was a complex issue and he felt
the applicant had some justification in his contention of
where the Camp Plan boundary lies, yet at the same time it
would be unreasonably cumbersome for there to be a legal
description of the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan
throughout the Plan "so there must be some rational basis
for deciding questions like this which hasn't really been
spelled out in the Plan." Mr. Bowling added: "And it
probably is never going to be spelled out .... The easy answer
is the zoning line is the line, period, but the hard answer
is the Plan is a living organism and it moves around."
Ms. Huckle asked if it was correct that a department store
could not be located in a Commercial Office zone, but rather
a Highway Commecial designation was needed. Mr. Wilkerson
responded affirmatively, adding that there was not enough
area.
Mr. Wood again addressed the Commission and pointed out that
the Ordinance calls for the east side of Rt. 29 to be
"community development." He explained that he has a 16 acre
parcel across from the bowling alley which is zoned HC, but
there is a restriction against a use that is more than
60,000 square feet. Thus, a store the size of Walmart must
be located on the west side of Rt. 29.
Mr. Benish again stated that "we are looking at land use
designation that is not intended to be parcel specific nor
development specific. We are looking at the relative
meaning of land use designations and interpretations and
where these designations fall on the land use map. So you
really do need to devoid yourself from the specific
characteristics of the request."
There was a discussion about the intended uses for the
property, i.e. a Walmart and a Sams, and the history
preceeding this request.
9/�
April 10, 1990 Page 16
Mr. Johnson asked why, if the zoning had been in place for a
number of years and it was the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan to continue that zoning, it was not reflected on the
land use map. Mr. Benish indicated that because there was
no specific natural boundary along which to draw the line --
staff had just "drawn a straight line" and "the confusion is
whether the straight line is reflective of what we thought
the zoning was, or whether it's an imaginary line based on a
roadway."
Mr. Benish added: "The comment about Berkmar Drive extended
pertains to property along the frontage of Berkmar Drive and
the reason for the concern for that is that that alignment
doesn't fall on the boundaries of properties, it cuts
through properties and the intent was that we didn't want to
introduce commercial development on the west side, so that
if you had a property that was split in half by the roadway,
we wanted the area to the west to be residential, and that
comment pertains to properties that hit that roadway where
the development's going to occur and not imaginary
extensions of the roadway. That's where the staff's
disagreement is with the applicant."
Mr. Benish suggested that if the Commission did not feel
comfortable with making a determination as to where the
boundary should be at this time, then it should consider
adopting a Resolution of Intent to study the issue and staff
would proceed to study the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
along with the rezoning request and then come back to the
Commission with more information at a later time.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that in making a determination that
staff is correct the Commission "assumes that the Board of
Supervisors agrees with staff" because it was actually the
Board which adopted the Comprehensive Plan and implicit in
that adoption is their understanding of the location of the
boundaries. He stated the issue as follows: "We have two
schools of thought. We have the developer who believes that
he has correctly interpreted the Comprehensive Plan as it is
written and shown on the map and we have staff who believes
that it has correctly interpreted the Comprehensive Plan
from a standpoint of consistance over a period of time in
interpreting existing zoning to be coincident with planned
land use boundaries. We have the choice of believing that
the applicant is correct, or believing that staff is
correct, that one of those two opinions correctly reflects
the Board's opinion when the Board adopted the Comprehensive
Plan. If we don't know, or if we're not sufficiently clear
about whether there is a compelling case for one or the
other, then the third option is the one David has
(suggested) and that is to simply ask staff to study the
April 10, 1990 Page 17
issue further and come back to us with more evidence on the
merits of where the line should be. So far all of our
discussion has centered on where the line was intended to
be, but the one option that is available to us to delve into
the Comprehensive Plan again in this specific area on a
merit basis is the third one and there's a question which
goes along with that and that is whether we want to bring up
the Comprehensive Plan again so soon after it has been
implemented. I think the only compelling reason for
reviewing it again is if there is sufficient confusion that
prohibits us from saying what was intended by the Board."
Ms. Huckle indicated she was considerably confused by the
issue.
Mr. Benish stated that with further study staff could
address the merits, benefits, and impact of both
interpretations.
Mr. Jenkins moved that CPA-90-02, to review the
Comprehensive Plan in relation to the consistency of the
boundaries of Heighborhood One, be adopted.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
There was a discussion about the meaning of Mr. Jenkins'
motion. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the motion was
intended to result in the adoption of a Resolution of Intent
to study the Comprehensive Plan to study this particular
issue. Mr. Johnson attempted to determine if the the
motion, as stated by the Chairman, actually conveyed the
Commission's intent as stated by Mr. Rittenhouse.
The previously stated motion failed to pass (3:3) with
Commissioners Anderson, Huckle and Jenkins voting for the
motion and Commissioners Johnson, Wilkerson and Rittenhouse
voting against.
Mr. Johnson moved that the applicant's interpretation be
accepted, i.e. "that the Comprehensive Plan zoning boundary
follows Berkmar Drive Extended and consequently that CPA-90-
02 (to review the issue further) be denied.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Johnson stated: "I think the result of that is
clarification of the Comprehensive Plan by extending the
April 10, 1990 Page 18
proposed Berkmar Drive Extended straight on to the Reservoir
as indicated by the map."
This motion failed to pass (2:4) with Commissioners Johnson
and Jenkins voting in favor and Commissioners Andersen,
Huckle, Wilkerson, and Rittenhouse voting against.
Mr. Wilkerson moved "that we acknowledge the zoning the way
it stands on CPA-90-02, supporting staff's interpretation."
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Mr. Rittenhouse repeated the motion as follows: "We have a
motion and a second that we deny CPA-90-02 because the
Commission agrees with staff's interpretation_"
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins stated that he would vote consistently in favor
of the motion; however, he expressed the feeling that the
Commission would be faced with this type issue again, i.e.
having to determine boundary lines within inches because
there is high-priced property involved_
Ms. Huckle stated she felt she did not have enough
information to make a determination at this time.
Ms. Andersen asked if the applicant could still request a
rezoning if the Commission agrees with staff's
interpretation. Mr. Benish explained that was correct, but
such a rezoning would not be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rittenhouse again stated he was uncomfortable with this
because he felt the applicant had justifiable reason to
pursue the issue in this manner, based on the applicant's
interpretation of the Plan. However, he stated he
understood staff's position and recommendations, and
therefore he was reluctant to re -study the Plan so soon
after a comprehensive study has just been completed and in
view of the fact that the Commission recently declined such
a study on another application (UREF on 29 North), and
because there was no defined change in circumstance to
warrant the undertaking of such a study.
Ms. Huckle indicated she would be in favor of a deferral to
allow time for more information to be compiled by staff.
Mr. Benish acknowledged such an action was acceptable.
However, he pointed out that "basically, you're asking for a
90
April 10, 1990
Page 19
study." He explained again that the Commission was being
asked to define a boundary, and not to necessarily to make a
change. He stated staff could do further analysis to give
the Commission a better understanding of the impact of the
differences of the two interpretations.
Mr. Wilkerson withdrew his motion to accept staff's
interpretation.
Mr. Wilkerson offered an alternative motion and moved that
the issue be deferred indefinitely.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Benish concluded: "I understand that what you've done
is to defer this so that I can provide further information
as to implications of the two boundary interpretations."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "CPA-90-02 is indefinitely
deferred."
QPA 9Q-Oa Wendell Wood - Change in land use designation in
the Hollymead Community from Industrial Service to Regional
Service and High Density Residential west of Route 29 and
south of Airport Road.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "...there has been no change in circumstance to
warrant any further review of Plan amendments for Hollymead
at this time."
The applicant, Mr. Wood, addressed the Commission and
requested that the item be deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that CPA-90-03 for Wendell Wood be
indefinitely deferred at the request of the applicant.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
CPA-90-04 Unisys Corporation,- Change in land use
designation for two areas in Neighborhood One from
Industrial Service to Neighborhood and Community Service on
Hydraulic Road and Route 29 North.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "...staff is reluctant to recommend an amendment
to the Plan which would result in a loss of Industrial
Service land within the northern part of the Urban Area
which has adequate water and sewer service available. ...
Staff opinion is that it is important to provide a variety
rW
April 10, 1990 Page 20
of land use opportunities within the Urban Area, including
Industrial service area, and can identify no change in
circumstance since last year's adoption of the Plan that
warrants reducing this area."
The applicant was represented by Mr. George Gilliam. He
explained the location of the property and surrounding uses
and also gave a brief history of the property. He noted
that it would be impossible, because of the size and
location of the property, for it to have the setbacks that
Sperry and Comdial have. He noted that there are small
industrial uses which would be suited to the property.
Mr. Benish provided some background information on the
proeerty also.
Mr. Gilliam commented briefly on traffic generation for
different types of uses. He concluded that the applicant
was not asking for an approval of any change at this time,
but simply for a Resolution of Intent which would allow
staff to complete a study which would assist the Commission
in making a determination on the request.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Max Kennedy, counsel for Sperry, addressed the
Commission. He stated his company concurred with staff's
recommendation that the Comprehensive Plan should not be
changed.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the merger had come about since the
recent adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wilkerson
responded and stated that the merger had taken place
approximately 2 1/2 years ago.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with staff's recommendation
and moved that CPA-90-04 for Unisys Corporation be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins noted that if there was a better use for the
property than Industrial, now was an opportunity to change
it. Mr. Benish stated that staff felt strongly about their
recommendation.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
gZ
April 10,1990 Page 21
(Note: The Crossroads Village Center Extension Request was
included on the agenda in error. It was to be heard on April
17, 1990.)
V. Wayne/ limb�.rg; Se,�retary
im