HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 17 1991 PC MinutesDECEMBER 17, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, December 17, 1991, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Torn Jenkins; Mr. Phil
Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. William Fritz, Senior Planner;
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler,
Chief of Planning; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
December 3, 1991 were approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
SUB-91-147 Lakeland at Re novia Phase 1 Final Plat --
Proposal to divide 22.4 acres into 33 lots with an average
lot size of 0.42 acres. 5.09 acres ❑f open space are also
proposed. All lots are to be served by new internal public
roads. Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 36, is
located on the west side of Route 742 between Mill Creek
North and Mill Creek South in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. This site is zoned R-4, Residential and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District and is within a
designated growth area (Neighborhood 5).
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP -62 Barbara & Leo Wachter - Request for a gift/craft
and antique shop [10.2.2(36)] on 91.72 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property described as Tax Map 101, Parcels 23 and
52A, is located on the north side of Rt. 708 approximately
1.6 miles west of Rt. 20 in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated
growth area (Rural Area 4).
The applicant's request for indefinite deferral was
unanimously approved.
ZMA-91-08 Nellie Moubr - Proposal to rezone 9.9 acres from
R-1, Residential to R-10, Residential. Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N is located on the south side of
Rt. 649 approximately 750 feet west of Timberwood Parkway in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located
_ within a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and
is recommended for high density residential (10.01-34
dwelling units per acre).
S�
12-17-91 2
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers.
In reference to Mr. Echols' letter of November 20 which
stated that the right-of-way will probably have to be
shifted, Mr. Fritz explained there is no way of knowing, at
this time, whether or not the right-of-way will have to be
shifted, nor how far.
Mr. Grimm called attention to the following statement in the
staff report: "Excessive development exactions could have
the affect of discouraging utilization of the holding
capacity of area, and thus, lead to accelerated development
in the Rural Areas." He asked staff: "Could you comment on
the cost per dwelling unit here--$3,705--in terms of that
statement?" Mr. Fritz explained how that calculation had
been made. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this is a partial
analysis which attempts to give some indication of the cost
per dwelling unit of the project, but because it does not
reflect any revenue projections from the development in
terms of increased property taxes, "we can't really give you
the bottom line." He explained further that the statement
regarding fiscal impact was based on "a consideration from
the Comprehensive Plan itself--i.e. that we feel...that the
proposal as it relates to the physical aspects of the Plan --
where development should be occuring and what density should
be provided in particular areas --needs to be weighed against
the possible costs to the County of a particular
development.... Otherwise these same units may locate
outside of our Comprehensive Plan areas for residential."
Referring to the applicant's first proffer, Ms. Huckle asked
about the possible location of utility lines (i.e. might
they need to be located in the buffer area?). Mr. Fritz was
uncertain about the location of the sewer line.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Marilyn Gale. She
explained that there is presently a manhole on the rear of
the Moubry property and the line may have to go alongside
and then under the stream to get it low enough for all units
to tie in. She offered no additional significant comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-91-08
for Nellie Moubry be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's
proffers as stated in a letter dated November 22, 1991 from
Marilyn Gale to Mr. Bill Fritz.
6-41
12-17-91 3
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB=91-132 Sherwood Commons Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 11 lots averaging 1.44 acres with a 12.61 acre
residue. Five of the lots are proposed to be served by an
extension of Mountainwood Road, a public road. Six of the
lots and the residue are proposed to access Sunset Avenue
(Route 781). Property, described as Tax Map 76 parcel 46C,
is located on the east side of Sunset Avenue approximately
4/10 of a mile north of its intersection with Route 631.
Zoned R-15, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This
property is located in a designated growth area
(Neighborhood 5).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Tarbell explained
that Lot 12 would exit onto Sunset Avenue.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked: "Would approval of this plat with
that note transferring density ensure the possibility of
development of the back parcel at greater than R-15
density?" Mr. Tarbell responded: "It would allow it if the
land can handle the townhouses, or whatever would be
proposed." Mr. Rittenhouse asked what density could occur
which would be greater than R-15. Mr. Tarbell explained
that it would depend on what happens with the other lots and
it was "a mathematical problem which we just can't answer
right now."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ethan Miller. He
explained the major difference in the current plan and a
previous one is the elimination of a through road to Sunset
Avenue. He explained that it was his hope that a market
could be found for the property because there seems to be a
market for townhouses. He envisioned that the property along
Mountainwood Road would be developed in townhouses similar
in density to Sherwood Manor and the property along Sunset
may be developed similarly or in a manner similar to
Redfields. He felt that lot 12 would be best suited to
multi -family units though he could not answer the question
about a definitive density of lot 12 either.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
6-7
12-17-91
4
Mr. Jenkins asked how the 11 small lots might develop. Mr.
Tarbell responded that it was conceivable that some could be
single-family, but they are zoned at R-15.
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the "mathematics."
He described a scenario where the 11 lots could be developed
at 1 dwelling unit each with the remaining 349 units to be
developed on 12.6 acres. He wondered if approving this plat
would result in the possibility of some future developer
developing it (Lot 12 adjacent to I-64) at a much higher
density. Mr. Tarbell did not think this was a possibility
because of topographical limitations of the property. He
pointed out that the Commission would not be obligated to
approve development on critical slopes. Mr. Keeler noted
the following issues: (1) There is a maximum allowable
density and that may or may not be attainable; (2) There is
an existing Swale on the property; (3) A completely
different type of development for this area would have to be
proposed (e.g. a high-rise), to achieve a higher density.
He also noted that this is adjacent to an Entrance Corridor
and the Architectural Review Board would have a say about
anything visible from I-64. He concluded: "Practically
speaking, I think it would be difficult to get more than 20-
25 units/acre on that property."
Ms. Huckle asked why the swale was not shown on the map.
Mr. Keeler explained that this was just a subdivision map
and there is already an ordinance provision in place which
protects critical slopes. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out: "Each
one of these parcels is going to be subject to site plan
review unless they develop as single-family or duplex units.
It will be at site plan review where those issues will be
addressed --detention, areas of open space --it is not a part
of the subdivision review to establish that."
It was determined that R-15 zoning allows up to 20 dwelling
units per acre with a bonus for open space. He added: "we
have in the Comprehensive Plan allowances of up to 34
dwelling units per acre (in a PUD)." Mr. Cilimberg pointed
out that even though the development of lot 12 may be at a
high density, "it can't exceed the provisions of the site
plan ordinance in terms of height of buildings, layout of
building area, parking, access, critical slope areas,
relationship of the EC Overlay."
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about a future situation
where there will be very dense development mixed with very
light development on the same parcel. He asked if staff
was saying that other provision of the Ordinance would limit
the ultimate development of Lot 12. Mr. Cilimberg stated
12-17-41
5
that staff could not say at this time what the limiting
factor of the development of Lot 12 might be because of the
possibility of ordinance changes over time.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated that though he was sympathetic to
Mr. Rittenhouse's concerns, he could not look at this
request hypothetically, but rather just at conditions as
they currently exist.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Sherwood Commons Preliminary
Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage and calculations;
b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and calculations for the
extension of Mountainwood Road;
C. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
3. Future site plans for all lots are subject to
Architectural Review Board review if the project is
determined to be visible from Interstate 64.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
There was a brief discussion about future road plans for
this area --realignment of Rt. 631/pld Lynchburg Road which
will collect traffic from this area and circulate it into
the City or to I-64 (via 5th Street). There is no plan to
open up Sunset Avenue.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Meetings - Mr. Jenkins noted that meetings are often short
and wondered if consideration should be given to descreasing
the number of meetings. Mr. Cilimberg noted that meeting
dates are driven by submittal dates.
Mr. Jenkins expressed appreciation to Mr. Rittenhouse for
his service as Chairman and to Mr. Wilkerson for his many
years of service on the Commission.
�9
12-.17-91
6
Mr. Cilimberg called the Commission's attention to a
Planning Journal which was primarily for appointed
Commissioners.
There was a brief discussion about "over -zoning" which is
taking place in some areas. Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that
a "swapping of information" with other areas could be
beneficial. Ms. Huckle felt a survey of unrented housing
and office space and unsold houses would be beneficial.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
B:00 p.m.
V. Wayne filimberg, Sec-r-Rtjkry
DB