HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 03 90 PC MinutesJULY 3, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, July 3, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Phil
Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter
Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were:
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June
19, 1990 were approved as submitted.
ZMA-89-09 - Rio Hill West - The applicant is petitioning the
Beard of Supervisors to rezone 35.083 acres from R-6,
Residential to R-15, Residential (proffered). Property
described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 29B, 29C, 29D, 29E, 91, 92,
93A1, 94, 95A, 108, 109C, 151, 173, 152, 153, 154, 155, and
156 are located on the west side of the proposed Berkmar
Drive Extension in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
The applicant was a requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that ZMA-89-09 be
indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-89-16 J.W. Townsend - The applicant is petitioning the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 12.2 acres from R-1,
Residential to LI, Light Industrial. Property, described as
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B is located on the west side of Rt. 29
approximately 3/10 mile south of the North Fork Rivanna
River in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to July 10, 1990.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA-89-16 be
deferred to July 10, 1990. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-90-55 James H. & Sue H. Willis - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit for a day care center for thirty children
[10.2.2(70)] on 8.8 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 92A is located on the south
July 3, 1990
Page 2
side of Route 250 at the southeastern corner of the
intersection of Route 250/Route 637 in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This property is not within a
designated growth area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that SP-90-55 be
indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-90-51 Joyce D. Norford - The applicant is petitioning the
Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to locate
a single wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map
35, Parcel 19, Rivanna Magisterial District. The property
is located on the east side of Rt. 20, about 1.2 miles south
of the intersection of Rt. 641 and Rt. 20.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report noted that
the proposed mobile home was to be a rental unit. The
report stated: "The Board of Supervisors has viewed mobile
homes favorably when providing necessary housing but have
not endorsed mobile homes as rental units outside of mobile
home parks."
The applicant, Ms. Norford explained that the person who
would be residing in the mobile home was helping her with
the repairs on the existing dwelling located on the same
property. It was determined the tenant would be paying Ms.
Norford a monthly rent. Ms. Norford indicated she was
having difficulty with the rennovations to the existing
dwelling and was badly in need of assistance.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Peter Howe, representing his mother (an adjacent
property owner), read a letter of objection. The reasons
for the objection to the request included concerns about
precedent, the transient nature of rental property, and
inconsistency with surrounding area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked why a time limit on the use of
home was not acceptable to the applicant. (Mr.
noted that the application was for a permanent
Ms. Norford indicated she did not know when th
would be completed.
the mobile
Rittenhouse
mobile home.)
e rennovations
July 3, 1990 Page 3
Mr. Rittenhouse referred to the statement in the staff
report related to the Board's lack of endorsement of the use
of mobile homes as rental units and concluded he could not
support the request.
Ms. Huckle asked if the request would have to be
re -advertised before a temporary permit could be considered.
Mr. St. John responded that readvertisement would not be
required. He explained that a temporary use was less
intense than what was advertised.
Mr. Jenkins noted that it sounded as though a temporary
permit might suit the applicant's needs. The applicant was
asked to comment on this option and also to explain in more
detail the nature of the tenant's role in relation to the
rennovation of the existing dwelling. Ms. Norford's answers
to these questions were not clear but it was determined that
the tenant had a "regular job" and would be assisting in the
rennovations to the house, including re -wiring the house.
She finally asked if a 5-year time limit could be
considered.
Mr. Keeler explained that 5-years would be consistent with
the maximum length of time allowable for a temporary permit.
However, he added that the request did not meet the
definition for a temporary permit so he questioned if that
was an alternative. He explained that a temporary mobile
home is intended to serve as a dwelling for the owner while
he is building a conventional dwelling.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated it was difficult for him to separate
the application from that of a rental unit, based on his
understanding of the nature of the intended use.
Mr. Johnson agreed and moved that SP-90-51 for Joyce D.
Norford be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
denial.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-53 John E. & Karin L. Slough - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit for a stream crossing in the floodplain of Red Bud
Creek [30.3.5.2.1] on 27.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Property described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 49 (part) is
located on the west side of Route 20 +4/10 mile south of
Route 621 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This
property is not within a designated growth area.
��
July 3, 1990 Page 4
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained that
since the completion of the staff report, the applicant- had
agreed to provide access to the residue and to a joint
maintenance agreement. Therefore, staff's original
recommendation for denial was changed to a recommendation
for approval subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. John Slough, addressed the Commission.
He offered to answer the Commission's questions.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Slough to explain the reason for the
need for an additional crossing since it will be less than
1/10 mile from the existing crossing. Mr. Slough responded
that it was his understanding that if he attempted to serve
this parcel with the existing crossing, he would have to
cross the floodplain with a paved road, which he felt would
be detrimental to the agricultural nature of the property
which he hoped to maintain. He noted that the proposed
crossing would not be within sight of the existing one.
In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, Mr. Slough explained
that the existing crossing serves the Ridgeway Estate and
Professor Dugan's property, and the newly created exempt
parcel has a fordable crossing, but he felt a fordable
crossing was not practical to serve a house site.
=t was determined Mr. Slough currently lives at Ridgeway.
He explained that it was his plan "to sell the Ridgeway
Estate, to sell a piece of property as part of this...I
would expand this parcel, and then to build our house on the
residue itself." He also explained that there is enough
property for two "farmettes" and so two users are envisioned
for the proposed crossing.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the. Commission.
Mr. Johnson interpreted that the applicant was requesting
two stream crossings, less than 500 feet apart, entering
onto Rt. 20.
Mr. Grimm noted that the staff report stated that utilizing
the existing crossing would interfere with agricultural use
of the property.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that using the existing crossing to
reach almost any building site would involve crossing a
fenced pasture area or crossing a hayfield. He stated the
proposed crossing would "hug the property line."
r July 3, 1990 Page 5
It was determined the property in question (27 acres) has
one remaining division right so the requested entrance could
eventually serve two parcels.
Mr. Johnson stated a cursory observation of this property
revealed no substantional difference in the agricultural
nature of either the residue or the "part delineated in red
within 400 or 500 feet of the road."
Mr Grimm asked staff to interpret the following statement
found in Mr. Parson's memo of June 15, 1990: "The plans and
calculations submitted by the applicant indicate that the
proposed stream crossing will have flood impacts consistent
with Federal Emergency Management Agency criteria." Mr.
Fritz responded that the County Engineer had reviewed data
submitted by the applicant's engineer in relation to the
Zoning Ordinance, and those comments were based on that
review. Mr. Fritz confirmed the Engineering Department was
recommending approval.
Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the request for the
following reasons: (1) He could see no different effect on
agricultural lands, "one way or the other;" and (2) It
would result in two crossings on the same stream within 500
feet and two entrances onto Rt. 20 within 500 feet. He felt
the existing crossing could easily serve all properties
adequately.
Ms. Andersen asked if the applicant would automatically have
to construct a different type of road if this request is
disapproved. Mr. Keeler responded negatively. He explained
that no upgrading of the road would be required at this -
time, but if any further subdivision should take place, the
road would need to be upgraded. He explained further: "The
two lots were created by taking advantage of the exemption
provision of the Ordinance and the subsequent granting of
the easement would also be exempt from the Ordinance."
Mr. Grimm referred to two favorable comments in the staff
report: (1) A road through the present location would
interfere with agricultural use; and (2) It meets the
Federal Emergency Management Agency criteria and the
Engineering Department has recommended approval. Based on
those comments, Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-53 for John E. &
Karin L. Slough be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering approval of grading plan;
July 3, 1990 Page 6
2. Crossing shall provide access to residue of Tax Map 62
Parcel 49. At the time of provision of access staff shall
require joint maintenance agreement, in order to ensure
adequate maintenance of the stream crossing and access road;
3. Prior to construction, entrance shall be improved in
accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
comments of June 21, 1990.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
It was determined that VDdT had not commented on the issue
of two entrances onto Rt. 20.
Ms. Huckle indicated she agreed with Commissioner Johnson.
She noted that Rt. 20 is a busy, dangerous road and more
entrances should not be encouraged.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (4:2) with
Commissioners Johnson and Huckle casting the dissenting
votes.
SP-90-47 Wrenson Corporation (application) Lawrence D.
Howell (owner) - The applicant is petitioning the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit to allow a rural
preservation development of 33 lots (10.5.2.1] on 338 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Properties, described as Tax Map 72,
Parcel 17, 21, and 45 (former parcels 21A and 38A), are
located on the east side of Rt. 635 south of and adjacent to
I-64 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This
property is not within a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that the proposed special use permit Rural
Preservation Development is superior to conventional or
by -right. (The report listed several reasons for this
position.) Staff opinion is that this request is consistent
with Sections 10.3.3.2, 10.5.2.1 and 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
ordinance and therefore staff recommends approval of
SP-90-47 Wrenson Corporation subject to conditions."
Ms. Huckle asked.for an explanation of the difference
between the open space and the rural preservation tract.
Mr. Fritz explained that the open space would be owned by a
homeowners' association and would not be available for a
housing site whereas the preservation tract will be owned by
an individual and will have a single housing site.
July 3, 1990
Page 7
Ms. Andersen asked how the open space could be used. Mr.
Fritz responded that staff envisioned limited agricultural
use. He added that it is staff's intention and the
applicant's intention to limit forestry activities on the
property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Steve Von Storch. He noted
that staff feels the application is consistent with the
intent of the Rural Preservation development option. He
noted that the entrance to the project is 1.1 miles from the
Crozet Growth Area which is only one -tenth mile outside the
one -mile radius recommended in the Ordinance, and therefore
the issue of precedent should not be a concern. He also
stated that because the property is so close to I-64, it
should not be considered truly rural property.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Von Storch stated
there were originally 4 parcels. He explained there are 32
development rights and 32 by -right lots could have been
developed, i.e. 5 development rights for each parcel and
then several 21 acre parcels.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Tom Wyant, an adjoining property owner, was not opposed
to the proposal but expressed the following concerns about
the development:
--The owner is not a local resident, but rather is an
absentee owner.
--Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31 and 32 are
adjacent to or visible from his property. He asked that
screening be required from existing residences.
--Small property owners are also due protection.
Ms. Linda Broadbent, representing the League of Women
Voters, read a prepared statement which is made a part of
this record as Attachment A.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental
Council, read a prepared statement which is made a part of
this record as Attachment B. The PEC felt that the "zoning
in the rural areas is inadequate to accomplish the stated
goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the rural
areas ... the chief goal of the Plan being to 'discourage
rural residential development."' Ms. Buttrick also asked if
the preservation and open space tracts would both be subject
July 3, 1990 Page S
to perpetual open space easements granted to the
Recreational Facilities Authority. (Both Messrs. Cilimberg
and Keeler responded affirmatively.) Ms. Buttrick expressed
concern that this Authority has never met. (Staff explained
the current status of the Authority and stated that staff is
doing all it can to convene a meeting of this Authority.)
Mr. Cilimberg added that staff is reviewing each easement
which has been submitted with each of the approved
preservation developments to make sure all conditions are
met. He stated that staff "will be signing the easement to
accept for the County any development that goes to final
plat." He added: "Before we will approve a final plat, we,
at staff level, will assure ourselves that the easement
language is structured to meet the intent of the approval."
Mr. St. John pointed out that the easement must be signed
before the plat can be recorded. Mr. Cilimberg responded:
"Before recording this plat, we may be in a position of
having to have the easement approved by the Authority and
signed." Mr. St. John explained: "Before any deed to a
public body is effected, that public body has to accept.11
Mr. Keeler added that the easement would also run to the
Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Huckle asked what recourse the Authority would have if
there should be violation of any of the conditions. Mr. St.
John responded: "The same recourse any other owner of an
easement has when the easement is violated. The remedy is
administered by the Court."
The public hearing continued.
Mr. Charles Black, residing on the southside of the proposed
entranceway, addressed the Commission. He interpreted that
the proposal would actually result in 32 lots on 150 acres.
He asked for an explanation of setback requirements, i.e.
"how close can they put a road to another property line?"
He asked if this was the same as for building setback. (Mr.
Fritz responded that he did not have his ordinance and was
therefore unable to answer the question.) Mr. Black
expressed concern that the proposed road appeared very close
to a small creek behind his house. He expressed concern
about the safety of Rt. 635 and having an entrance onto that
Road. He asked if a decel lane would be required and a
speed limit posted. He pointed out that the road is a major
artery feeding Albemarle High School. He questioned how the
road could support more traffic.
f,
July 3, 1990 Page 9
Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Black questions about the size and
location of the stream to which he had referred. Mr. Black
stated that the stream serves as his property line on the
north side.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there was a 100 foot setback
required from the stream. Mr. Keeler responded that because
this is a request for a special use permit, the Commission
can require a 100 foot setback.
Ms. Huckle asked if the land between the proposed road and
Mr. Black's property was steep. Mr. Black responded that he
considered it to be steep, approximately 20% grade. It was
determined the stream was intermittent. (Mr. Wyant
interjected that he could recall the stream having been dry
only once, in 1933.)
The public hearing continued.
Mr. Pierce Johnson, a neighboring property owner on Rt. 791,
addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about small
lots. He felt the property was being "divided to the
maximum" which he felt was out of character with the Revelry
Farm subdivision.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on whether or not the
by -right development rights could actually be realized. Mr.
Fritz called the Commission's attention to an alternative
plat which showed by -right development of 32 lots and on the
surface it appeared to be able to meet the requirements of
the Ordinance.
Mr. Johnson asked if this had been "laid out in
consideration of parcels which are involved in this?" Mr.
Fritz responded: "Yes; this takes into consideration the
existing parcel configuration so that development rights
were used only in those lots that had development rights and
they were not shifted around." He added that it appeared
that even taking into consideration critical slope areas,
all the lots would have building sites.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the same was true of the proposed plat,
i.e. are all those lots proposed viable with no slope or
drainfield problems, etc.? Mr. Fritz explained that based
on the plan submitted to staff all the lots have adequate
I6a
July 3, 1990 Page 10
building sites in terms of adequate area in slopes of less
than 25%, and likewise the road will avoid critical slopes.
Mr. Keeler interjected that staff had not received a soil
scientist's study on the individual lots at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the conditions of approval (No. 3)
call for Commission approval of the subdivision plat at
which time all lots will have to be verified for adequate
building sites and septic fields.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out this would also give the
Commission a chance to review the location of the road in
relation to the stream.
Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be added which would
address the issue of the setback of the road from the
stream. Mr. Cilimberg stated that was up to the Commission.
Mr. Keeler added that a final decision on the location of
the road might best be delayed until staff has had time to
visit the site with the Watershed Management Official. He
suggested the following language for a condition: "Planning
Commission reserves the right to re -locate the entrance road
with regard to its proximity to streams."
Mr. Johnson wondered if that would not be covered under
condition No. 3--"Planning Commission approval of
subdivision plat." Mr. Keeler noted that adding another
condition would make the Commission's concern clear to staff
and the Board.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the location of the road should
also take into consideration the contour lines, grade, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg stated staff and VDOT would consider those
issues along with the subdivision plat.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt an important aspect of the request was
as stated in the comments from Mr. Echols, Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation --"This request is
supposedly not for an increase in the number of lots, but
rather for the lot configuration." He explained that the
rural preservation concern had been instituted to allow for
better planning and he felt that was the case here. He
pointed out that the number of lots being developed was not
really an issue because the developer has the right to
develop that number of lots by right.
Mr. Johnson stated he could support the request with the
"recognition that the ultimate plan would be given severe
scrutiny relative to its effect on the environment."
.V/_ i
July 3, 1990 Page 11
Mr. Grimm commented: "I think Ms. Buttrick had a good
comment ... when she commented on the Comprehensive Plan and
its juxtaposition with this issue of developing rural land.
It seems as though the rural land is being eaten up by
housing lots, but that there is this by -right subdivision in
the Ordinance which allows people to develop their land
reasonably within their right to do so and I think this
particular development, with the preservation development
concept, kind of makes a compromise in this whole thing. if
we have to see the rural lands developed, this would be one
of the better ways in which to do it."
Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-47 for Wrenson Corporation be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of preservation easement in accordance
with Rivanna Water and Sewer Easement prepared for Buck
Mountain Reservoir;
2. Development shall be in general accord with sketch
titled "Howell Property" dated June 15, 1990;
3. Planning Commission approval of subdivision plat;
4. Access road to be constructed as a public road and
dedicated to public use.
(NOTE: Two more conditions were added later in the
meeting.)
Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Grimm would be willing to amend his
motion to include two additional conditions as follows:
--A 100-foot buffer to be provided on lots 15, 16, 17,
18, 22 and 23 adjacent to the properties to the south.
--Planning Commission reserves the right to re -locate
the entrance road with regard to streams.
Mr. Grimm agreed to this amendment to his motion and these
two conditions were added as Nos. 5 and 6.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Von Storch offered to supplement whatever setback
July 3, 1990 Page 12
requirements might exist with a 100-foot undisturbed buffer
along lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 23 and indicated it was
his intent that the field remain and be maintained in its
current condition.
Mr. Keeler felt it was appropriate to make this a condition
of the special permit. He explained: "Conditions on a
special permit should address those aspects of a particular
proposal which distinguish it from development by right and,
in this particular Case, the by -right development only
shares two tracts and by virtue of moving all the lots in
this direction through the special permit, they are exposing
this property (he pointed out the adjacent property) to this
many more lots. Normally, we do not require any kind of
buffer from single-family residential to single-family
residential until you get to four units per acre or greater.
I think in adding this condition --it's voluntary by the
applicant to begin with --but the nature of the special use
permit moving and allowing more lots to be exposed to these
properties; it's probably a reasonable condition."
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the northern portion on the
property is very close to I-64 and wondered if anything
could be done about buffer along that property line. He
noted other areas which have used noise buffers such as
walls and fences. (Someone commented that an artificial
noise buffer as mentioned would certainly not be in keeping
with the rural countryside.) Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that
there was a natural ridgeline which runs along I-64 which
would offer some buffer.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it was not the Commission's
intent nor domain to insure the marketability of the lots.
Ms. Andersen asked if there was any way to address Ms.
Buttrick's comment regarding the inadequacy of the zoning
for the protection of the rural areas. She asked how the
ordinance could be amended so that "this type of thing
doesn't continue to happen."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff and the previous
Commission had spent over two years studying the possibility
of an increase in the 21 acre residue to 40 acres, "the idea
being that we would reduce the number of subdividable lots
in the rural area." He stated that had been approved by the
Commission and passed on to the Board who "declined to take
that route --they stayed with the 21 acre residue."
Ms. Huckle commented: "Maybe we should try it again --we
have a new Board who may have seen the light by now."
July 3, 1990 Page 13
Mr. St. John stated there was a short answer to Ms.
Andersen's question, i.e. "the only way to reduce rate of
development in the rural area is to reduce the development
rights in the area." He explained: "You have to hold
public meetings and look the people --the owners --in the eye
and reduce their development rights. There are no subtle
environmental changes --in my judgment. You can tinker with
the building site regulations, the septic tank regulations,
etc. with an idea towards discouraging density in the rural
area. That's a backdoor kind of disguise, an attempt to
reduce density by technical regulations in disguise. ...
You can take away the development rights openly and
acknowledgedly and say 'We're going to go to 40 acres from
21 acres or we're not going to have any by -right development
in the rural area except for bona fide agricultural
dwellings. Other states have done that. When you go out to
do that you are going to have to face the owners and it's
your decision and the Board's as whether to do that, but
there's no other way to do it."
Mr. Cilimberg added that the possibility of the reduction of
development rights had also been considered but the
Commission had chosen not to endorse that alternative. He
stated the issue had been considered and would probably be
reconsidered in the future.
Mr. Keeler described the history of how the 21-acre concept
had been developed and how it had been perceived at its
inception.
Mr. St. John stated: "Forty -acre lots will eat up farmland
precisely twice as fast as 20 acre lots."
Mr. Rittenhouse brought the discussion back to the motion on
the floor, that being a motion for approval of SP-90-47 for
the Wrenson Corporation.
Mr. Black noted that his question about setback requirements
for the road had never been answered. Mr. Keeler responded:
"There is no requirement. In cases where the road would
make existing structures on the adjoining property
nonconforming as to setback, we would require that to be
moved. We did that in signet Hill, west of Batesville. The
road right-of-way can't be closer than 75 feet to an
existing house."
Mr. Johnson felt this was a controversial subject because he
stated he could cite instances where a state road and
right-of-way has been constructed within 20 feet of an
existing house.
July 3, 1990 Page 14
Mr. St. John noted that the Highway Department was not bound
by our Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Huckle asked if that meant that our Subdivision
requirements did not apply. Mr. St. John replied: "No; the
state road is being created as part of a subdivision we're
approving. I believe what Mr. Johnson is talking about is
where they widen an existing road."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "We will approve the road location
as part of the subdivision approval."
The previously stated motion for approval of SP-90-47 for
Wrensen Corporation, subject to the six conditions stated
previously, passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 9:20 to 9:30.
ZMA-90-07 Unisys Corporation - The applicant is petitioning
the Board of Supervisors to rezone 34 acres from LI, Light
Industrial to HC, Highway Commercial. Properties are
described as Tax Map 61W, Section 3, parcels 19A and 19B.
Parcel 19A is located on the north side of Hydraulic Road,
east of and adjacent to Village Green Shopping Center.
Parcel 19B is located on the west side of Route 29.
Properties are located in Neighborhood One and the
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
denial based on the following reasons:
--"Except under restrictive proffers, HC rezonings on
roads other than Rt. 29N in the northern Urban Area have
been viewed as inconsistent with the statement of intent of
the HC district.
--Commercial sites are generally developed more
intensively than industrial sites. ... comercial development
tends to be less sensitive towards the land than industrial
development in terms of building and parking coverage and
attendant grading.
--.The Unisys property is the only significant
undeveloped Industrial Service area in either Neighborhood
One or Two. Staff opinion is that it is important to
provide a variety of employment opportunities within the
Urban Area. The development community has consistently
criticized the County as to the lack of industrial land
served by public water, public sewer, major highway and with
reasonable topography. The Unisys property exhibits all of
these characteristics and to devote the land to other usage
would seem to be contrary to the desires of the development
community.
4'
July 3, 1990 Page 15
---This request is not in harmony with the recommended
use of Industrial Service areas as shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. This request represents an unfettered
rezoning which could establish uses characteristic of a
Regional Service area.
--This request would result in an increase in traffic
when compared to existing zoning.
--The applicant has submitted no proffers which would
regulate access, uses or address the function of Route 29,
and to a lesser degree Hydraulic Road, as entrance corridors
to the City."
Mr. Keeler added the following comments: "We have approved
rezonings along 29 North that obviously do increase the
traffic. What this is is rezoning of property to something
other than what the Comprehensive Plan shows. We have NOT
recommended any of those rezonings that would result in an
increase in traffic."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Kroner. He
explained the history of the ownership of the parcel and
also described the existing uses and zoning of the property.
He commented on the traffic generation figures and indicated
if the property were developed with it's existing zoning it
would generate 435 "new" vtpd, and though the proposed
zoning could result in 2,000 to 4,000 vtpd, it would be
traffic that was already on the road and would not be
"extra" traffic. He stated the property was going to be
sold regardless of the zoning and the applicant realizes
that the "L" shaped property serves the community better as
LI, thus they have not requested a change for that parcel.
However, he felt the proposed rezoning would result in a
greater tax base for the County and also would have a more
appealing nature.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Kroner confirmed
the property would have access to Rt. 29 only (not Hydraulic
Road).
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Linda Broadbent, representing the League of Women
Voters, addressed the Commission and a read a statement of
opposition to the proposal. That statement is made a part
of this record as Attachment C.
There being no futher public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
a64
July 3, 1990
Page 15
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he supported staff's position for
denial.
Mr. Grimm agreed and moved that ZMA-90-07 for Unisys
Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
denial based on those reasons stated in the staff report and
summarized previously in this record.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins stated that though he would support the motion
for denial he understood the applicant's reason for making
the request. He felt the property would eventually be
rezoned to HC, at some future time, because it is already
surrounded almost entirely by Highway Commercial. He felt
the traffic problems on Rt. 29 would never get fixed until
they get worse.
Mr. Johnson felt the "timing" was not good for the proposal.
Ms. Andersen pointed out that there is very little LI
property in the County.
The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
R.L. Beyer Landscape Plan - Mr. Keeler gave a brief history
of the project and reminded the Commission that an adjoining
property owner had been concerned about screening. For that
reason, the Commission had reserved the right to review the
landscape plan. Mr. Keeler explained that the property
owner who had expressed concern (Mr. Hartman) has seen the
elan and is satisfied with what is proposed.
Mr. Jenkins moved that staff be granted administrative
approval of the R.L. Beyer Landscape Plan.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Keeler explained
that this project was not subject to the new landscape
provisions because "a final site plan is subject to the site
plan ordinance as it existed when the preliminary plan was
reviewed."
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
July 3, 1990 Page 17
Traffic Signal - Hillsdale Drive/Rio Road - Mr. Cilimberg
explained that "the County holds a bond from Weinstein
Associates (developer of Squire Hill) which they would like
released. Farber proposes to post a $50,000 bond to cover
most of the cost of a signal at this location. Staff, given
these circumstances, is prepared to accept this bond amount
or cash contribution as an alternative."
This issue was discussed at length and three possible
courses of action, suggested by the County Engineer, were
considered. Those possibilities were: "(1) Require the
bond from the Farber Company in an amount of either $50,000
(with no future increases) or reestimate current
construction costs with construction costs to be reestimated
each time the bond is renewed or when constuction actually
occurs; (2) Request a cash contribution from Farber Company
in lieu of the above bond to be held in an interest bearing
account with funds specifically earmarked for the
installation of this traffic light; or (3) Release the bond
and construct the traffic light when required with secondary
road funds."
Mr. St. John explained the bonding process in some detail
and the options stated above. He stressed that in this case
it is the County who cannot determine the need for this
light by any specific time. Therefore, he stated: "I don't
think it's legally feasible for us to hold this as a bond
any more. The bottom line, in my opinion, is if Farber is
willing to make a cash contribution and say 'That's it, my
obligation is discharged, if the traffic light costs
$100,000 twenty years from now, I've given you fifty of it
but I'm free and clear,' --we ought to accept that."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that Farber has not offered a cash
contribution, but the possibility has been discussed. He
stated Farber has offered the $50,000 bond.
Mr. St. John stated that if a cash contribution is not
offered, then the County should accept the $50,000 bond
"with the understanding that as they renew it from time to
time it will not be increased."
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about Farber's
obligation in relation to the light, Mr. Keeler explained
the history of the issue including the connection between
Weinstein and Farber. He explained this had been a
requirement 12 years ago, but Fashion Square is not
"I?
July 3, 1990
Page 18
generating the need for the light. Mr. St. John added that
Weinstein had been willing to install the light all this
time but "we" have not allowed it. It was determined that
Farber is now willing to take over the obligation so that
Weinstein's bond can be released, but under the terms which
have been discussed.
There was a discussion about the amount of the bond. It was
pointed out that the existing bond could not be "called"
because the developer has not defaulted on the bond. It was
also pointed out that before the light could be required,
the Virginia Department of Transportation had to determine
if all the "warrants" had been met for said light.
It was finally decided that the Commission's first choice
would be a cash contribution, but in lieu of that,
acceptance of the $50,000 bond.
Mr. Grimm moved that the Commission authorize staff to
accept a cash contribution if offered, and in lieu of a
contribution, to accept the bond as proposed with the
understanding that the bond could never be increased.
Ms. Huckle seconded the :notion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:30 p.m.
DS
16 4