Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 21 90 PC MinutesAUGUST 21. 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner. Absent: A representative of the County Attorney"s Office. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 24, 1990 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA PREVIEW - Mr. Fritz presented a brief preview of the items to appear on the August 28 Consent Agenda-- Riggory Ridge Final Plat and Hardtimes Estates. No action was required. CONSENT AGENDA Peacock Hill Section 7 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 15 lots from 17.188 acres. Proposal is to be served by internal private roads. Property, described as Tax Map 738, Parcel 29, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the west side of Rt. 708 just north of Interstate 64. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development with ZMA-85-22. Forest r nheg Blocks I. J, K. L. M, N. 0. Preliminary Plat Proposal to divide 71.6 acres into 123 lots with an average lot size of 8,800 square feet (0.2 acres) (Blocks I, J, K, L, M, N) and 16 lots totalling 7.54 acres with an average lot size of 10,500 square feet (Block 0). Property, described as Tax Map 46B3, Parcel 1, Tax Map 46, Parcel 29F, is located on the southeast side of Timberwood Parkway and Cross Timbers Road intersection, and property described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 29 and 29E (part) located 500 feet east of the intersection of Cross Timbers Road and Timberwood Parkway. Zoned R-4, Residential in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located within a designated growth area. AJ4,* August 21, 1990 Page 2 Townside II Final Site Plan - The applicant is proposing to construct 24,393 square feet of retail space and supermarket on 2.47 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property is to have joint access to Rt. 250 and is to be served by 178 parking spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcels 38 and 39, is located on the south side of U.S. 250, approximately two -tenths of a mile west of Old Ivy Road in the Jack Jouette Magisterial District. This property is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-90-65 Moore House. Inc. Cab21icant). Bishop Walter Sullivac (owner) - The applicant is proposing to construct Elderly Housing, Nursing Facility & Adult Day Care [20.3.2.31 on 7.04 acres zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3. parcel 8, is located on the east side of Hillsdale Drive north of and adjacent to the Church of the Incarnation in the Branchlands Development. Property is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Regarding the procedural issue raised by another property owner in Branchlands (Mr. Ron Langman) Mr. Fritz commented: "Staff has consulted with the County Attorney and he is of the opinion that this application is properly before the Commission." Mr. Fritz advised the Commission: "Youmay determine, however, that the application before you is not in keeping with the PUD agreements and deny it on those grounds. He confirmed that would be proper also." Mr. Keeler made the following statement about a comment that the JABA site was not a residential use: "In any case where a rezoning comes before you and an applicant is proffering out public uses, we've opposed that in the past. So I don't think there's ever been any intent on the County's behalf in approving a plan or accepting zoning proffers to limit the location of public uses in any area in the County." Mr. Johnson asked if the County Attorney had determined that the request is compatible with the PUD. Mr. Cilimberg August 21, 1990 Page 3 explained that was not a determination for the County Attorney to make, but rather for the Commission and Board to make. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson; attorney for Bishop Sullivan. He explained that this program was being sponsored by Bishop Sullivan and three local parishes. He stressed that the concept of the project was to meet a social need and was not for profit. He stated it was being underwritten, in Part, by the CRtholie diocese. He explained the project was geared to low and moderate income persons. He explained the project in some detail. He also noted that this was a non -denominational project. Mr. Dave Draper. also representing the applicant, presented photographs of a similar project. He explained that this project would have all three levels of care --congregate, assisted and nursing. Regarding the objection raised by Mr. Langman, Mr. Gibson pointed out that this plan was less obtrusive and would have less impact on the surrounding areas than a by -right plan. He stated also that this development will generate 30% fewer vehicle trips Per day than a by -right development. He noted also that this project would have no impact on schools. Approximately 75 to 100 persons were in attendance at the meeting in support of the Proposal. The Chairman invited Pnhlin rnmment Mr_ Ron Langman. a member of the PUD, addressed the Commission. He expressed his opposition to the proposal. He stated he was not opposed to the "social well-being of the Catholic Church and McNichols Associates in providing this type of facility." However, he stated he was concerned about "the methodology which is being taken here in going around the PUD document." He felt approval of this petition would set a precedent because "the enrreot way was to go through the PIJD amendment Process." Additional comments included the following: --Pravions nhange:s to the PUD have hewn accomplished through a Zoning Text Amendment change. He asked why the same procedure was not being followed. --This will invite other members of the PUD to attempt to "go around the PUD dornment." --The last r.hange to the PUD had taken 2 1/2 years to accomplish. SOD Ananst 21_ 199n Page 4 He noted that he had not received notice of the public hearing. He indicated his main concern was "consistency in methodologv." He felt this would open the door for other developers to "gain d ensitv." The following Persons expressed their support for the Proposal: Mr. Charley Moore: Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA); Pat Abel; Ms. Eunice McDermott. Their comments included the following: --There is presently no retirement community in the Charlottesville area which moderate income persons can afford. --The present proposal is more in line with what was originally intended for the property than the existing Branchlands Retirement Community. --The difference in this project and the existing Branchlands retirement community is that this project is not for profit and consequently more people will be able to afford to live there. Ms. Langman . wife of Dr. hangman. one of the original developers of Branchlands, objected to the comment that Dr. Langman's vision had not been followed. She, too, felt the process should be followed as it has been in the past. Mr. Gibson made final statements. Regarding the suggestion of precedent, he stated: "I think if a precedent is being created here it is one of a less intensive use." He felt the proposal was in keeping with the overall intent of the PUD. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle expressed confusion nhont the gnestion of prenad ent. Mr. Reeler gave a detailed history of the Branchlands PUD. He reonrted that two special permits have previously been approved in the Branchlands community, one of which was for the existing congregate care facility which was for 312 elderly housing units. He stated: "7 think if there's any Precedent at all. the precedent is there --that we did entertain and approve the special use permit for a congregate care facility which is along with lines of what is being proposed with Moore House." He pointed out that neither of the two Previous permits had required the *I ! Ang+i st 21, 1990 Page B Mr. Jenkins asked what were the possible results of approval of this request if such approval were to be viewed by other members of the PUD as a "breaking of the rules." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It might be better to look at it in terms of how we viewed this as a use on top of traffic generation. It's a special use permit but it's under a residential category and it's a type of residential use which allows for a special use permit. We viewed it as to its impact based on traffic and drainage. We would look at any other amendment on those same lines. Is the use consistent with the use that's put on that parcel, whether it be by special use permit or by right and does the traffic generation and drainage concern of the total PUD--is that addressed by the proposed amendment or the special use permit that's requested?" Mr. Jenkins interpreted: "I don't see either one of those getting us in trouble." Mr. Keeler added: "I think it's a question of how you all view the PUD that would effect your decision. From our viewpoint, any change to the PUD that would change elements of mutual concern such as drainage or the roads --and I agree with Ron Langman these elements of mutual and public concern are about the only reasons to maintain this as a PUD--but any change to those, in our opinion, would rtquire agreement by all the property owners. The approved application plan for a PUD governs the development of the PUD, generally. So one of the first things you decide is whether or not this is generally in keeping with the designation of this particular property. Moore House is not requesting a change from residential to industrial or residential to commercial. They're requesting a special use permit that's under the residential designation." In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Keeler stated classification of this as a residential use would fall under Section 20.3.2.3 which authorizes it by special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Section 20.3 is titled "Permitted Uses - Residential"--i.e. a special use permit allowance in a PUD under Permitted Uses - Residential. Mr. Johnson felt that answered the question of compatibility with the PUD. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that the last amendment to the PUD, which had required the signatures of all the PUD participants, had been related to the drainage and road system. Mr. Keeler also stated: "I f.1A August 21. 1990 Page 5 signature of all the property owners in Branchlands, which is the position of Mr. Langman. He noted, however, that both of the previous permits were approved prior to the last amendment to the Branchlands community. He explained that there are four components of a PUD--(1) Open space; (2) Residential; (3) Industrial: and (4) Two types of commercial. He stated: "The construction that we placed upon Moore House is obviously that that parcel of land was designated for residential, but it is not our opinion that that has foreeloRpd any other iise of that land other than 82 free-market units or 106 low and moderate income units. ... The historical review on the part of staff, in terms of the land use, has primarily been in regard to traffic generation. This goes all the way back... to the original Branchlands application where the Catholic Church, in fact, significantly reduced both the intensity of land uses and types of land uses that could occur there by virtue of the PUD." He concluded that staff's previous reviews of this development in no way obligated the Commission's decision on this application. Mr. Rittenhouse felt there were two main issues: (1) The appropriateness and compatibility of the use with the intent of the PUD; and (2) The appropriateness of the procedure, i.e. whether modification of the PUD document should precede action or whether the special permit for a residential use which is already included in the PUD is an appropriate mechanism for changing or modifying the use. Mr. Johnson questioned whether technically this proposed use can be considered residential. He wondered if this was a technical violation of the PUD. It was determined the use is considered residential because it is neither commercial nor industrial. Mr. Johnson suggested that the issue of compatibility could be resolved if Mr. Langman would acknowledge formally that the use is "compatible in his eyes with the residential interpretation and consider it is not a change in the PUD." Mr. Rittenhouse stated he did not think that was Mr. Langman's intention_ Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the procedure supported by Mr. Langman would require the unanimous signatures of all the owners in the PUD. Mr. Cilimberg responded that question had been put to the County Attorney who ruled that "it would require all the signatures of the PUD members if it were to be a PUD amendment." August 21, 1990 Page 7 think Mr. Langman's position is that it took two and one- half years to hammer all the conditions of that ZMA which also included some back and forth between the property owners as to the various types of land uses. What I'm saying is that the staff was not so much concerned about the land uses as the framework of the review, the traffic generation, and the two elements which were of mutual concern to all the owners in there and the general public -- the road system and the drainage." He again stressed that the current review of this application was "in line" with the way it has been reviewed in the past. He stated: "We review it for matters of public interest and public concern; the applicants have their own interests." Mr. Cilimberg added: "We don't have a change in use in terms of the types of uses. Any application or change in use in a PUD from what is currently called for, whether it be residential or commercial, would have to go the zoning text amendment route because it is not a special use permit. This application (does qualify as a special use permit)." There was a brief discussion about the definition of "low to moderate income housing." Mr. Rittenhouse asked: "Staff is not in disagreement with the submitted traffic study?" Mr. Fritz responded: "No sir; it has been reviewed by the Virginia Department of Transportation and their comments are attached." Mr. Rittenhouse attempted to summarize staff's position: "In a case where there is no rezoning necessary for a use and there's a special use permit category available for that use, we would then, typically, consider the special permit application. Staff is saying that this is the case here. It happens that this property, instead of being zoned R-1 or R-something, it's residential property in a PUD and a special permit application is appropriate to that residential property and staff is looking at that application within that context." He concluded: "I think the use is appropriate to the uses contemplated for the PUD; it would seem an appropriate special use permit application... and on that basis I enn s»ppnrt the ar)oIir.atinn_" Mr. Grimm moved that SP-90-65 for Moore House, Inc. (applicant), Bishop Walter Sullivan (owner), be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: Augnst 91, 1990 Page 8 1. Use limited to 116 units with not more than 30 beds to be converted to intermediate care nursing; 2. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-88-07; 3. Site shall be developed in general accord with plan by Gloeckner & Osborne dated June 15, 1990 and revised July 12, 1990; 4. Donation of +1.01 acres for use by Jefferson Area Board for Aging as an Adult Day Care Center. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously_ Staff advised the Commission that action was also required to find the JASA request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Sec. 23.1.7 Public Uses and Public Buildings and Sec. 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia). Staff explained that it is permitted by -right within a residential area, but it requires an affirmative action by the Commission that the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jenkins moved that the JABA request for an Adult Day Care Center be found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SDP-90-054 - Moorehouse at Branchlands eraliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 104,260 square foot building for elderly housing containing 100 units and a 10,970 square foot nursing home containing 30 beds in Phase I and a 8000 square foot adult care building in Phase II. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, parcel 8 is located on the south side of Hillsdale Drive adjacent to Squire Hill Apartments and the Church of the Incarnation within the Branchlands PUD. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Charlottesville Magisterial district. (SP-90-65 pending) This site is located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was again represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. He offered no significant additional comment., There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. August 21, 1990 Page 9 Mr. Wilkerson moved that SDP-90-054 for Moore House at Branchlands Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial entrance permit; d. Planning Department approval of landscape plan. 2. Compliance with ZMA-88-07 and SP-90-65; 3. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official approval. 4. Staff approval of final site plan. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Fritz explained that a Certificate of Need would have to be issued for the Nursing Home before it could be used as a nursing facility, but it could be used as residential until the necessary permits have been issued. The previous motion for approval passed unanimously. ZMA-90-09 Cathcart -Turner Development Com2any (applicant), Hurt Investments (owner) - The applicant is proposing to rezone 24.06 acres from R-1, Residential, to PRD, Planned Residential Development with a maximum of 360 units. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 2 (part), is located on the east side of Route 742, Avon Street directly east of the Armory in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. JU August 21, 1990 Page 10 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report Staff recommended approval based on certain agreements developed between the staff and the applicant. Mr. Johnson asked staff to comment on "the authority behind" the following statement contained in the addendum to the staff report: "...impact analysis on those rezonings which have been identified in our CIP or six year road plans." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Our interpretation --and based on the advice of the County attorney --has been that any consideration of the impact of a development, under the cash proffering enabling legislation, is to be based on projects that have been identified in your Comprehensive Plan and have been programmed for development in your Capital Improvements Program, your Six Year Road Plan, or a like program. What you have here is a statement which says that our information is based on that interpretation. We consulted with other localities who are more into the cash proffer system and they have likewise taken this approach in determining how any development might impact public facilities or road systems_" Mr. Johnson commented: "The reference in the Statute, 15.1- 491.2:1 on this subject states: 'No proffer shall be accepted by a county, city or town unless it has adopted a Capital Improvements Program purusant.._.' Number one, you have to have a Capital Improvements Program. It does not say that the issue at hand has to be in (said) program. However, it says 'Such payment of cash shall not be made until the facilities for which such property is dedicated, or cash is tendered, are included in the Capital Improvements Program.' In other words, my interpretation of that, verbally concurred with by the County Attorney's office, is you have to have a Capital Improvements Program -- which we do --and at the time that any cash be tendered or any land be tendered, the item has to be in the Capital Improvements Program. but the item does not have to be in (said) program at the time s proffer is identified and authorized .... I think this makes sense because the alternative is that in preparing the Capital Improvements Program to cover these conditions you have to have considered all of these options snd n1ternntives of what might come up before the fact and that's asking quite a bit. So to me the interpretation that you have to have a Capital Improvements Program is acceptable, and the interpretation that you have to have it prior to the delivery of is logical, but those are in conflict with your interpretation here." August 21, 1990 Page 11 Mr. Cilimberg responded: "We are making that interpretation for the purpose of providing you information that we can identify. We have said that our identification of the impact to public facilities is general in nnt»re and is rather limited based on the information that we have at hand. We are not evaluating anybody's proffer here. There is no Proffer. We're only analyzing an impact based on facilities that we feel like are directly related to this development and have been identified in our Capital Improvements Program or road plan. We've provided informatinn for only those projects which the potential additional population will likely effect —and where the staff has a reasonable understanding of the capacities and service standards of those facilities. We're providing an analysis based only on CIP and Six Year Road Plan; we've gone no further. We're not saying you can't accept a proffer if it's made. Mr. Johnson stated: "You're not saying if the proffer became an issue that it wrnild have to be., on some project that was identified now, or at the time of consideration, in the program. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The applicant can make a proffer for whatever they feel is in their interests or is in the county's interests related to their project. We're not evaluating that; it is not before us. We're just telling you, based on what we can identify, this is an impact that we have identified." Mr. Johnson asked: "Why. in your analysis, did you not identify, or proceed further, with Department of Transportation's statement that with this project the road would become intolerable?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Avon Street is not in our Six Year Plan, it is not in our list of priorities for the County; it's not in the Comprehensive Plan. It's not listed as a project anywhere, so we have no idea what the cost for upgrading Avon Street to a level that would carry the traffic that is foreseen by VDOT would be. We have no way of dealing with that and we did not try to address those types of unidentifiable circumstances. ... We don't have any dollars identified hanausp it's never hPPn included in our priority of planning work. ... There certainly could be a proffer for an upgrading of Avon Street made, but that's not before us_" 5V August 21, 1990 Page 12 In response to Ms. Hackle's question, it was determined that approximately 758 persons were expected to reside in the development. Regarding recreation area, Mr. Keeler explained that the project would have to meet the rRquirempntp of Sen. 4.18. There followed a lengthy dison ssinn nhont the fiscal impact of the development and the intention of the Board in requesting that the staff review rezoning requests for their fiscal impact on public and transportation facilities. Mr. Rittenhouse was uncertain of the Board's intention. He asked: "Are they anticipating that we are going to evaluate it for applicability of cash proffers? What does the Board expect of the Planning Commission with this data that they're asking you to generate on these requests?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The intention, ultimately, of the Board would be that any rezoning request, particularly residential rezonings, be evaluated for both it's revenue produced to the County and the expenditures to the County as well as for the impact on facilities. Ultimately, we hope to be in a position to provide that information not only for the Board but for the applicant as well. This is in anticipation of the allowance for cash proffers that exists in the State Code. At this point in time, unfortunately, we're only able to provide a very basic, and only part, of the total picture. We have not made an estimate of revenues, as an example, because we just have not had the ability to do that kind of estimate, and, in fact, we will be meeting shortly with our finance department to discuss the revenue side of development and how they might be able to assist us in that kind of evaluation. Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted: "We are sort of betwixt and between. We are in a position where the Board has recognized the need to do this with the hope that through such an analysis we can balance the budget on residential development. I assume that's the case so that through some sort of formulation increased residential development would not be an increased burden on the taxpayers. But in order to do that requires some fiscal modeling that we had hoped to get done somewhere along the line and we're not there yet. So we stand between the recognition of the need and the mechanism for implementing a solution to that need and here we sit with the first real shot at this...." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out: "Our intent here, in particular, was to identify the projects that would be impacted and the 3S9 August 21, 1990 Page 14 any rezoning where there are obviously going to be public facility and road impacts, is that all of our rezonings will be in growth areas. That will be the only opportunity to consider impact and cash proffers, if they're made and for the growth areas to work we've identified the need to be supportative of them in terms of, if not now, in years to come and what is premature or not premature is up to you to decide. There is the chance, over time, if rezonings are denied in the growth areas for residential development, that ultimately we have the potential of shifting that burden to the rural areas." It was determined the project under consideration was for rental units. There was a brief discussion of how cash proffers were expected to work. Mr. Cilimberg stated that, to date, the County has not received any offers of cash proffers, and there are not cash proffers on this development and staff has recommended approval based on the aspects of the development and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jenkins understood that we were asking the developer to build a road which could eventually be the connector road. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We are reserving, with this development, the opportunity to have a road dedicated to public use which would serve the rest of Hillerest down to another public road which is to be built. ... He would build a road through his development to a standard that is required by his development." Mr. Johnson expressed concern about there possibly being only one access to the development. It was later determined that both accesses to the development would be built in Phase One. The Chairman invited applicant comment_ Mr. Kurt Wassenar represented the applicant. He explained this would be a high -quality apartment complex. The development will be done in such a way as to maintain the natural beauty of the site, specifically the waterfront will be developed as a protected area and a large buffer of pines will be maintained. He explained that both an excel and decel lane will be built which will improve that part of Avon Street. He also stated the entrance road would be built to VHOT standards even though they have indicated they have no interest in accepting that roadway. He explained August 21, 1990 Page 13 level of impact because I believe that in your decision making you need to balance the level of impact, not just in dollars, but in facilities against the benefits of the development both fiscal and through our Comprehensive Planning program which has identified this as a high density residential area." Mr. Rittenhouse listed the options available to the Commission as follows: "(1) We agree that the rezoning is beneficial to the county and we endorse it; or (2) We find that it is not beneficial and we don't endorse it." Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission could determine that the proposal is "premature." It was noted that this term had been applied to other proposals (the UREF proposal and a rezoning in Crozet). Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Crozet rezoning had been challenged and would be going to court. Mr. Keeler pointed out that this situation is different from the UREF proposal because that applicant had wanted to amend the Comprehensive Plan and expand the growth area. He pointed out "that was a whole different ballgame" because this area is shown for high density in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler reviewed some past comments of VDOT related to Avon Street. Regarding the term "nontolerable," Mr. Keeler stated that simply means that it would have more traffic on it than it's designed for. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have an unsafe condition. It was noted that VDOT had made the same comments, verbatim. at the time of the Mill Creek proposal. Mr. Keeler commented on the status of roads and noted that once the growth area is complete "we will have the need to improve all the roads in the urban area." He also stated: "So, in order to make the Comprehensive Plan work and capture development in the growth areas where we have shown it to occur and thereby reduce the pressure on the rural areas --and I believe this is outlined in the Plan --you have to understand that not all the facilities and not eveything is going to be right there to accommodate 700 people simply because we don't build that stuff ahead of time --the Highway Department doesn't; the County doesn't and we're not in any financial shape to do that." Mr. Cilimberg noted that an important factor to consider in August 21, 1990 Page 15 that high quality recreational facilities would be provided (tennis courts, sports facility, swimming pool, access to the lakefront). He confirmed that two entrances would be constructed at the beginning of the development. He noted that the proposal was at the low end of the high density scale. He felt the project was precisely what the Comprehensive Plan recommended; is appropriate in terms of features and amenities and the way it works with the site; respects its neighbors in terms of the buffering; and it makes the best use of the lake which is there. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, he explained that it is anticipated that the units will be two stories with the apartments being on one level. Regarding the impact study which the applicant had performed, Mr. Wassenar explained it had been a good faith effort, but was a considerably expensive and time-consuming effort. He felt it would be very helpful to use this applicant's experiences in defining the requirements of what is really needed. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission_ Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was "somewhat hungup" with the directions of the Board regarding fiscal impact vs. the fact that this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and appears to be well-thoughtout and also considering the tremendous expenses which the county is currently considering with the upcoming Capital Improvements Program. He stated he recognized staff's limited ability, at this time, to fully address this issue. Mr. Johnson indicated he shared these concerns. He noted that staff's figures on impact and the applicant's figures on revenue resulted in a yearly "input on the part of the residents of the County of over $500,000" and that does not include the aspects of the road, August 21, 1990 Page 16 Mr. Johnson stated it appeared that the applicant's figures were based on averages rather than specifics. He interpreted a $500,000 impact on County finances. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the applicant had also had to make some assumptions in arriving at his figures. Mr. Wassenar explained that he had been directed by staff to "consider the capital improvements budget only as it relates to property taxes." He explained his procedure as follows: "What I attempted to do was to take the capital improvements project in any given year, allocate it thoughout the services that we saw and deal with the issue of what our property taxes are going to contribute. I think that it would be a mistake to say that our project is going to generate a deficit because the people who live in our development are going to pay sales taxes, they're going to pay state taxes which are funnelled back to the County, they work in corporations that pay taxes...." Mr. Rittenhouse quoted from some of the assumptions made in the Impact Study: "The study assumes that the County has determined that the Capital Improvements Budget is in some way a representation of the impact cost of new development to the County." He stated: "While that might be a reasonable assumption to make, I am not sure that it's a verified assumption because we're faced with that now as we look at the CIP for the next five years. It's a dilemma." Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant had read the memo he had written to the Commission and the Board which outlined how staff planned to approach the issue of impact, and he had then attempted to make a similar type effort. He explained the applicant had attempted to analyze both sides, whereas staff had only concentrated on the expenditure side. He also noted that the applicant had focused on only one type of revenue --real estate property taxes. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that the Commission is trying to arrive at the "right fiscal impact." He added: "Neither staff has the resources and the study in place yet to do that, nor does the applicant, nor do we. -940 August 21, 1990 Page 17 We're not going to sit here and figure out whether this is going to pay for itself or whether. it will create a $600,000 deficit for the County which the County will have to fund in terms of public education and police and fire services. We're not going to get anywhere with that." Mr. Jenkins added: "We can all break down and cry, but I don't think he is going to volunteer a certain amount of money which is all the laws or all the Ordinance allow him to do. We are in no way in a position to say, 'Look, each one of these units is going to cost this much and this is how we figured it out, and that's the end of it.' No haggling back and forth is going to resolve that and the Board of Supervisors must know that." Ms. Huckle stated she was "ambivalent" about this issue because she realized that an effort is being made to direct growth to this area and away from the rural areas and the utilities have been put in place to encourage development in this area. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-07 for Cathcart -Turner Development Company (applicant), Hurt Investments (owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following agreements agreed to by the applicant and staff: 1. Development shall be in accord with plan dated 7/18/90 titled Lakeside Apartments, page 1-3; 2. Primary (northern) entrance road shall be constructed in accord with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and reserved for dedication. Dedication shall occur at such time deemed appropriate by the County; 3. Southern entrance road shall be constructed in accord with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and shall be served for dedication. Dedication shall occur at such time deemed appropriate by the County; 4. Recreational facilities shall be for the use of the residents and guests of Lakeside Apartments only; August 21, 1990 Page 18 5. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for dam to include a provision that the lake shall not be reduced more than 20 percent in area; 6. A 15' pedestrian access easement shall be provided adjacent to the lake for the benefit of the residents of the Lakeside Development; 7. Administrative approval of final plans. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle asked if the submittal of this plan committed the applicant to the recreation areas as shown. She noted that sometimes recreational areas "get lost in the shuffle." Mr. Fritz noted that condition (1) would address this concern and, in addition, the applicant would have to meet the recreation requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg added: "We intend in planned developments to, as they phase, to have recreational areas developed and bonded, if necessary, for development." Ms. Huckle asked if there should be a condition requiring bonding. Staff responded negatively. Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the motion because of what he felt was a "rather significant over expense to the County." He admitted that the expense could not be defined at this time, but suggested that the request could be deferred until such time as it can be better defined. He felt that information should be available before further action is taken. Ms. Andersen stated she felt a message should be sent to the Board stating: "At this point in time we cannot fulfill the request to the satisfaction that we would like. I feel that these figures are not viable. They are based on 1985 predictions that have no bearing on 1990 costs. I don't think these figures are very meaningful." Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for high density and the Board has endorsed the Comprehensive J-4/ August 21, 1990 Page 19 Plan and thus, by implication, has said that this use is appropriate for this area. However, the Board has indicated to staff that this fiscal impact question is relevant and should be considered in a rezoning request, but staff does not currently have the mechanism in place to perform the kind of analyses that the Board wants. He stated he was in a dilemma of "trying to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan when it is questionable that the fiscal impact issue has been accounted for with what has been offered on the part of the rezoning. " He noted that some extreme costs are facing the County in terms of educational needs and it is clear that those costs are the result of growth. Mr. Jenkins stated that if the Board comes to the Commission with this type of "nudging", they should at least say to the public that "As of September 1--they have to approve this too --we're not going to approve any additional plans in the growth area where the developer doesn't proffer some contribution for it." He indicated it seemed as though the Board was expecting these determinations to be made "by some kind of magic." He concluded: "I don't see that tonight is the night were we can sit here and say, 'Beginning now.' The Board of Supervisors should take the position that this is the day, right now." Mr. Johnson stated that the Deputy County Attorney had cautioned him that "neither the Planning Commission, the Board, nor anybody else, can legally require proffers. They are all voluntary. It can be turned down because of the unacceptability of the fiscal impact, through that route, or it can be deferred." Mr. Keeler explained that presently staff had no way of determining what an applicant's "fair share" would be. He stated it would take a mega -computer to come up with these numbers and that is a problem that both the County and the applicant are experiencing. Ms. Huckle asked when those figures could be available. Mr. Keeler responded: "That's out of our control." Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff did not have the resources at hand to do a complete evaluation, e.g. a traffic analysis model. He explained that staff was providing as much information as possible and "you can make your decision based on that information and all _R4& August 21, 1990 Page 20 the information you get from us in any rezoning report. That is as far as we can go at this point." Mr. Jenkins called for the question. The previously stated motion for approval of ZMA-90-09 passed (4:3) with Commissioners Grimm, Jenkins, Wilkerson and Rittenhouse voting in favor and Commissioners Andersen, Johnson, and Huckle voting against. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that his vote was based purely on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and "should in no way imply to the Board that I feel that the cost of the fiscal impact has been satisfied nor do I feel that we have analyzed the fiscal impact adequately. I think that's something that needs to be done; I just don't think we've been given the tools, nor does staff have the tools, to do that job adequately." Mr. Johnson noted that both staff and the applicant had made a commendable effort to analyze the fiscal impact. He added: "I do think that the provisions of the next -to -last paragraph of Mr. Cilimberg's memorandum of 30 May are inaccurate, however. Pd like for you to check that out with the County Attorney." He noted that he referred to the statement that "anything to be considered has to currently be identified in the CIP or Six Year Road Plan. " He continued: "I take strong exception to that and, verbally, I have the concurrence of the County Attorney's Office." Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt the goal of the Board was valid, i.e. to direct growth to the growth areas and to consider the fiscal impact of growth. However, he concluded: "We're just not there yet; staff doesn't yet have the resources to have accomplished the modelling necessary to give us that information. ... I certainly want to see that data forthcoming and I think we need a stronger statement from the Board as to what they expect of us GIVEN the resources that are currently available to staff." Mr. Wassenar wondered "if there's a way to divorce approval of the project as a project from approval of a process which, from the applicant's standpoint, is an almost impossible proposition at the ,3�r j, August 21, 1990 Page 21 moment. ... What you've set up is a process which is, from the applicant's standpoint, totally unworkable, and I feel very disappointed that there is not a way to send a message to the Board that we're all disappointed and we're not there yet through disapproval of a project which in every respect meets the intent of the Code and the objectives which the County has worked so long to put together. We see it as an enormously destructive process if it's not controlled properly which will result in the undermining of everything that zoning is about in terms of planning for the County." Mr. Rittenhouse concluded: "Clearly, we have to have a unified approach to this fiscal impact. I don't think we can rely on, or expect every developer to do his own impact study which will be different among the various developments and the way they look at things and then expect to analyze that intelligently." The Commission recessed for 10 minutes. ZTA-90-07 - Entrance Corridor Overlay District and Architectural Review Board - Proposal to amend Section 30.0, Overlay Districts to create an Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and to create Section 34A.0, Architectural Review Board of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendments are to conserve elements of the County's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect certain qualifying roadway corridors as enabled under Section 15.1- 503.2 of the Code of Virginia. Preceding the staff report, Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to three letters from local developers and professionals (Blake Hurt, Andrew Dracopoli, and Bob McKee). Regarding these letters he stated: "We generally agree with all the criticism included in those letters.... We do not consider this Zoning Text Amendment to be the final word, the panecea, the ultimate for the entrance corridors. This is simply to get something on the books to allow you to be able, in some manner, to address development occurring on these roadways while a more comprehensive approach is undertaken. That's why in addition to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District being before you tonight, there is also an ordinance here to JJ/P August 21, 1990 Page 22 create an Architectural Review Board which planning staff views as being integral to this process." Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and explained the proposed amendments. Referring to the list of roads in section 30.6.2, Mr. Keeler stated that staff was recommending designation of only U.S. Rt. 250E, U.S. Rt. 29N, U.S. Rt. 295, I-64, and Va. Rt. 53 at this time, which are the major tourist accesses. Ms. Huckle asked why staff was not including Va. Rt. 20N. Mr. Keeler responded that the Commission could recommend whichever roads it chose, but the staff was trying to start conservatively. He. again stated: "The notion here is that this district would control the development until such time as we had specific design plans for these other roads. We have no objection to adding Rt. 20N." Mr. Johnson asked if the Board's approval of this would actually be an approval of all 16 roads listed. Mr. Keeler responded negatively. Mr. Cilimberg further explained that the Commission's action would be to either recommend the entire list of pull from it certain roads. Staff agreed that approval without a recommendation for certain roads, as suggested by staff,. would indeed be an approval of designation for all 16 roads listed. Mr. Keeler clarified that staff was not recommending the entire list, but rather the four noted (plus the addition of Rt. 20N as requested by Ms. Huckle). Mr. Rittenhouse questioned the meaning of the following statement contained in Section 34A1. Architectural Review Board: Appointment and Organization: "The Chairman, or, in his absence, the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses." He interpreted this implied some sort of legal standing on the part of the ARB. Mr. Keeler responded that it had been some time since he had reviewed the Commission's By - Laws, but he felt the Chairman of the Commission could possibly have that same authority. -RAN August 21, 1990 Page 23 Mr. Keeler noted that the following should be added to Section 34A2(a): " ... in accordance with duties as setforth in the ordinances related to such districts;....." Mr. Keeler summarized: "As we envision this, the Entrance Corridor District would apply along major tourists' routes and also accesses to historic sites either in Albemarle or adjoining localities -- Charlottesville, Scottsville. The Architectural Review Board would develop specific plans for each corridor. The Architectural Review Board would take the place of item No. 9, Historic Preservation Committee, and would also be responsible for developing a Historic Preservation Ordinance and doing an inventory and recommending designation of historic sites and the like. We have attempted to write the Entrance Corridor District to keep your authority separate from the authority of the Architectural Review Board. ... I believe under the Entrance Corridor District our interest is in the view from the roadway and not in the particulars of the type of casement windows and basement on the back of building which you're not going to see from the road. Those are matters for the Board of Supervisors to discuss with the Architectural Review Board, should they choose to establish one." The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environment Council, addressed the Commission. She read a statement of support which is made a part of this record as Attachment A. Ms. Genevieve Keller, a Preservation Consultant, expressed her support for the concept. Mr. Andrew Dracopoli, representing Mr. Gene Worrell, addressed the Commission. He expressed support for design guidelines along the 250E corridor and for the Commission's and Board's efforts. However, he expressed concern that "there is a perceived need to do something immediately and this is an easy thing to do, but isn't going to solve the problem." He noted that simply doubling the setback will not improve the appearance or design of a building. He stated his primary concern was that because of budgetary pressures the Architectural Review Board will not be properly funded, there will .4Sd August 21, 1990 Page 24 not be enough money for consultants to be hired to do the individual corridor design studies, and that this ordinance will be considered the solution to the problem. He felt it was not the solution to the problem. He stated: "In our area we are particularly concerned with design guidelines effecting what happens across the street." He urged that a time limit be placed on this ordinance to the effect that if a more comprehensive ordinance is not developed within a certain time this ordinance will lapse. He expressed fear that other work items higher on the Comprehensive Plan priority list would take priority over these lower listed items. Mr. Pete Bradshaw, representing McKee/Carson, addressed the Commission. He, too, expressed support for the County's efforts. He continued: "But we agree with other statements made this evening concerning the inadequacy of this stop -gap measure to deal with the problem at hand. It is our recommendation, as a firm, not to adopt the ordinance as written, but to push forward with the Architectural Review Board --even an Environmental Review Board --to be able to look at each individual aspect of each corridor as has been so aptly pointed out by others. They have individual characteristics and each should be looked at differently. Certainly, the built environment, in many instances, is exactly what we're trying to preserve and show to the public --historic structures which exist --and well -designed structures do not necessarily have to be shielded or setback farther." He expressed support for Mr. Dracopoli's suggestion that a time limit be placed on this suggested ordinance which would "thereby force the Board to go forward with the naming of an Architectural Review Board with more specific guidelines." He felt that was very important and that what is adopted tonight "not be the . end." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he agreed with the concept and with the comments which had been made. He felt it was important to begin the process. He also felt it should be communicated to the Board that the Commission feels it is "not intended to be an all inclusive ordinance, nor an all inclusive tool for what we are trying to accomplish." 4V August 21, 1990 Page 25 Mr. Wilkerson asked if staff intended to make any changes in the proposed ordinance based on the comments made by the public. Mr. Keeler responded negatively. Mr. Wilkerson asked what time table would be anticipated for moving on to the next step. Mr. Keeler responded that would be up to the Board. He added that staff shares the concern of the public, i.e. "in order for this to be effective at all, we need to move on a pace with establishing an Architectural Review Board and getting to work on these design plans." He added that it should be understood that it would take a financial committment on the part of the County to make this successful. He added that he did not think this ordinance would be any more successful than the Scenic Highway Ordinance has been. Mr. Wilkerson asked staff to comment on the suggestion of a time limitation. Staff responded that a time limit had not been considered. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that a reasonable recommendation to the Board would be "that they implement an overlay district understanding that it is a very small part of what ultimately needs to be done --you recommend the Architectural Review Board be created and you recommend that the Board make a committment to the Architectural Review Board to undertake corridor design studies and that that be done immediately --that it not be delayed for any period of time and that the Board make the necessary committment to that." He felt the work program for completing that would have to be decided upon by the Architectural Review Board with some input from the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Huckle suggested that even if there were not funds to do the corridor study at this time, that the Architectural Review Board be selected so that they could act as an advisory panel to the Commission and Board. Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with the comments made by the public regarding a time limit; however, he stated he could not support the suggestion because of the difficulty with establishing such a time limit. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he did not support the time limit suggestion because he felt it would "take the teeth out of the ordinance." August 21, 1990 Page 26 Mr. Wilkerson stated that it should be recommended to the Board that this be given No. 1 priority. Mr. Johnson commented: "I find it dificult to recognize anything this ordinance is going to do. We have the scenic highways and it's been acknowledged that that's rather ambiguous as far as application goes. It looks to me like the only thing we've accomplished here is to satisfy the Board's request for a proposed ordinance. On the positive, what I see missing here is that which was used in the Comprehensive Plan, which was identified as a goal, objective and strategy. These are gross, general statements, but this is missing to me in this and if you had an Architectural Board they still don't have any guidance except 'Make things nice.' ... Going further, looking at this list of applications and selections and recommending that 29N be recommended in lieu of others --I pick that as a specific example --I say that's the last thing in the world, from an effective standpoint, that this is going to have any effect on except when you get way out. If we want to really have some immediate effect, we start looking at 250E or 250W and 295, (places) where it hasn't been done already. That's where you could have the most immediate effect. All the comments that were made should be given very serious consideration. This ordinance --all it does to me is just make a lot of words --I would go ahead and submit this but without recommendation --the Board wanted it so they got it --but with a recommendation that an Architectural Review Board be established, not under these guidelines, but they need to have objectives, strategies, etc.. But let them work up something. I question whether this 'administer oaths and compel attendance' is appropriate. I don't even know if the Board of Supervisors has that, maybe they do. Right now we have the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals and now the Architectural Review Board all getting into the act one way or another potentially. That's too many! The Architectural Review Board, I would suggest would be as an Advisor to the Board or us to make their presence known and let . us take advantage of their expertise. But we're just getting too many people involved in the approval of sites." He also referred to recent newspaper articles about the difficulty with getting plans approved because of a lack of specific direction. August 21, 1990 Page 27 Mr. Johnson made the motion that the "Zoning Text Amendment as it appears here be forwarded for information in compliance with (the Board's) request --that it is our intent to come up, within the next two weeks, with a specific statement of goals, objectives and strategies for the Entrance Corridor as has been practiced in the Plan, and our recommendation would be to at the same time to come up with a set of by-laws for the Architectural Review Board and so recommend that that be established in the very near future." (Note: This motion did not receive a second and was never acted upon.) In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Entrance Corridor was not the same as the Historical Overlay. He stated the Entrance Corridor is allowed under the enabling legislation of the Code which deals with historic districts and historic preservation but the establishment of a Historic Overlay District is a separate ordinance. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA 90-06 be recommended to the Board for approval as presented by staff. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. (NOTE: This motion was not acted upon at this point but was re -stated later in the meeting.) It was called to the Chairman's attention that there was a motion on the floor. Mr.. Rittenhouse noted that Mr. Johnson's motion had not been specific for approval or denial. He felt Mr. Johnson's motion should be considered new business. Mr. Johnson clarified that his motion had been to forward the ZTA without recommendation. Mr. Rittenhouse questioned how it could be forwarded to the Board without recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg explained the actions available to the Commission: "If you don't think the EC district as presented here is adequate or what you feel the County should adopt for itself now, you should recommend denial. If you feel it is a reasonable first step, you should recommend approval. If you want more work done to it, you should defer and we'll just let the Board know that the Planning August 21, 1990 Page 28 Commission, at this point in time, is not prepared to recommend an EC Overlay District to them." He pointed out that if the item were to be deferred, there is not much more that staff can do with the district. He concluded: "We gave it our best shot based on the fact that we're not designers and with what we had available in terms of our resources. We dealt with it basically from a zoning Ordinance, site plan approach and realized that we should leave the design aspects to the people who can best address that." Mr. Johnson moved that ZTA-90-07 be indefinitely deferred until such time as a goal, objective and strategy to be used can be more specifically identified. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Johnson's concerns in terms of creating another whole layer of government. He felt this was a sizeable endeavor. Mr. Grimm interpreted that staff is saying "they do not have the expertise in design architecturally, or the time, to do all this." He concluded: "What I see as an implication here is that there is a need for another set of expertise and this is their proposal for that set of expertise. I think it looks great and they have laid out a good outline here for a beginning." Mr. Wilkerson noted that a deferral would still not result in that expertise coming from - staff. Mr. Johnson felt the issue was "not the individual definition by corridor or street but the general stated approach of what we're trying to achieve and I don't see that here." Mr. Keeler noted: "All we're trying to do here is the basic framework that we understood the Board wanted. We're not trying to solve it all with this district.... I'm not sure that there's much more than we can put in here that's going to do anything right now. It's a much more -S-T� August 21, 1990 Page 29 complicated issue than we will be able to address in another week or two." Mr. Cilimberg added: "In terms of goals, objectives and strategies, the Comprehensive Plan laid out 'the intent to have corridor design plans done. It's there in the Action Agenda and it results from goals, objectives and strategies in the Plan. That's really been accomplished, we feel, and the Board has sent the directive to us to develop an EC Overlay District. They've already said what their strategy is. The strategy is to develop the EC Overlay District and to come back with an Architectural Review Board and I don't feel goals, objectives and strategies need to be developed any further. I think we're talking about how it's going to be implemented and accomplished: That's the way we've approached it. ... I think the basic goal, objective and strategy of what we're trying to do has been done." Mr. Wilkerson called for the question. The previously stated motion for indefinite deferral failed to pass (2:5) with Commissioners Andersen and Johnson voting for the motion and Commissioners Grimm, Jenkins, Wilkerson, Rittenhouse and Huckle voting against. The Chairman called for an alternate motion. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-90-07 Entrance Corridor Overlay District and Architectural Review Board be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff (See Attachment B) , including U.S. Rt. 250E, U.S. Rt. 29N, U.S. Rt. 295, I-64, Va. Rt. 20N and Va. Rt. 53. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about how the list of corridors was chosen. He stated he felt it was somewhat arbitrary to add Rt. 20N and not some of the others. , August 21, 1990 Page 30 The motion for approval passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. UR.