HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 23 89 PC MinutesMay 23, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, May 23, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr.
Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner; and Mr. James Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 9, 1989 were approved as
submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
South Side Medical Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a
public health clinic within a new two story building of 2,688 square feet.
The clinic will be located on 15 acres and will be served by 20 parking
spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 109A, is located on
the north side of Rt. 6, approximately 1 mile east of Rt.' 627. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-89-27 Joseph Terry - Request in accordance with Section 22.2.2(8) of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for motor vehicle rentals on property zoned C1, Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 38A, is located on the west side of Rt.
29 approximately 300 feet north of its intersection with Rt. 649.
Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from May 16, 1988 Commission
Meeting.
Ms. Patterson presented the staff report. The report noted that
staff did not support Virginia Department of Transportation
recommendations for drainage and turn lane improvements. Staff
recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. Terry, offered little additional comment. He did
explain briefly existing landscaping.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
There was a brief discussion about landscaping requirements. Mr.
Bowerman stated he felt the condition would remain with staff using
their discretion as to what would be required.
J717
May 23, 1989 Page 2
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with staff analysis of the VDOT
recommendations.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-89-27 for Joseph Terry be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Parking of vehicles in accordance with plan marked "Special Use Permit
89-27" signed "A.M. Patterson, May 15,. 1989."
2. Not more than 31 trucks and 12 trailers shall be located on site.
These numbers may not be exceeded for.more than 15 consecutive days
in spring and fall, dates related to the University of Virginia's
schedule;
3. Administrative approval of parking area plan amendments, to include
review of landscaping.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-28 Richard & Geraldine Muller - Request in accordance with Section
10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit
to allow for .the transfer of four development rights. Property, described
as Tax Map 47, Parcel. 16, and 16A,: is located on the east side of Rt. 20,
adjacent to the Rt. 649/Rt. 20 intersection. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from May 16, 1989 Commission
meeting.
AND
The Riggory Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create eleven (11)
lots from an existing 70.6 acre parcel.. A private road is proposed to
serve these lots. This request is being reviewed.concurrent with a
special permit. Property, described as Tax M-ap 47, Parcel 16, is located
on the east side of Rt. 20, adjacent to the Rt. 649/Rt. 20 intersection.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from
Xay 16, 1989 Commission meeting.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The main issue of discussion
dealt with the design of the subdivision. The staff report explained:
"The applicant proposes to design the subdivision such that
four of the twelve lots will share a common boundary with the Riggory.
Staff suggested a redesign of the subdivision, with all the lots
being located on the south side of natural ridge that extends through
the property. Such a design would mitigate the potential negative
impact that subdivision activity may have on the rural and historic
setting of the Riggory. Staff recommended that all the property
north of the ridge be added to the Riggory to act as a natural buffer
under control of the Riggory, maintain more land available for
historic agricultural use, and possibly make the Riggory more
marketable as an historic estate.
The applicant investigated staff design suggestion and submitted,
what staff considered, a feasible design. At this time, it is the
0
May 23, 1989
Page 3
applicant's wish not to proceed with staff's suggestion, citing
that screening measures will be used on the original plan to
accomplish the visual objective.
Conclusion: In staff opinion, the proposed development scheme does
not adequately protect the historical setting of the Riggory.
Staff would reiterate that the applicant has designed a
development scheme, that, in staff opinion, would better
preserve the setting of the Riggory and was looked upon as a
supportable concept.
Staff recommends denial of SP=89-29 Richard Muller."
Both Mr. Keeler and Mr. Bowling confirmed that the two applications,
the special permit and the subdivision plat, were "inseparable."
In response to Mr. Bowerman's attempt to clarify staff's position, Mr.
Keeler stated: "We applaud the concept of protecting the Riggory. It
is just simply a matter of design."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee. His comments included
the following:
--The Mullers have lived on the property for twenty years and
have a sincere interest in maintaining the Riggory. They plan
to retire there and must generate some income from the
development of the property.
---The Mullers offer the following proffers which they feel meet
the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: (1) Conservation ease-
ments (gray, shaded areas) along the critical slopes and drainage
ways of the property. It is envisioned that there will be no
disturbance within those easements. (2) Buffering along Rt. 20.
(3) Abandonment of all development rights on the Riggory proper in
perpetuity.
--In return for these proffers they ask one thing, i.e. to be able
to develop lots which they feel are marketable, which offer better
building sites and which could lend themselves to the kind of
development which they envision.
--The Mullers will be living in the Riggory and they will be the
"people viewing the so-called undesirable homes up on the ridge."
--The original compromise proposed by the applicant was to give
up by -right development rights and to "transfer" development
rights from the Riggory proper, the 22 acres, to the 70 acres.
He stressed that the alternative, at that time, was the by -
right alternative. He noted that this was a "concept" plan
at that time and was not presented to staff.
--Mr. McKee commented on differences in the alternative plan and
the preliminary plan and pointed out that with either plan
screening would be required. He stressed that the preliminary
plan was the one before the Commission. He noted that both
the preliminary plan (proposed and favored by the applicant)
and the alternative one plan (preferred by staff) were preferable
to the by -right subdivision interms of preservation of the
Riggory proper. The applicant believes that the quality of
the building lots is superior under the preliminary plat and
3S/
May 23, 1989
Page 4
development costs are more affordable. In all cases the number of
lots is 12. Four dwelling units.will be visible from the Riggory
with the preliminary plan and five with alternative one. The
average lot size is greater with the preliminary plan and the
applicant feels this is more in keeping with the rural character.
The length of the road is shorter in the preliminary plan which
is important both economically and in terms of impact on the
property.
--The applicant feels a private road is preferable to a public
road because it is more in keeping with the rural character
of Rt. 20 North. A private road will also allow for planting
of street trees within a reasonable distance of the street.
A private road will afford homeowners more privacy. The applicant
feels a private road better fits the terrain of the property.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. McKee to explain what the applicant envisions for
the area shown as "buffer" on the preliminary plan. Mr. McKee
responded: "We propose the planting of coniferous trees in those
areas," Mr. Michel asked: "Are you increasing the setback? Are you
talking about not being able to build in there?" Mr. McKee responded:
"Yes, we would restrain the building envelope to that. area. Certainly
not way down, but we'd like to be able to provide what we think are
good building sites, time think these are better than the ones on
alternative one from the standpoint of being able to sell homes which
is one of the objectives of the owner." Mr. Michel asked: "So you
are proposing some sort of increased setback?" Mr. McKee responded:
"We can do that, I think; we show a setback line on there which I
think is 75 feet." Mr. Michel noted that that was the standard setback,
he thought. Mr. Keeler interjected that the setback requirement for
the rear yard (the northern boundary) was 35 feet. Mr. McKee stated:
"We could propose up to a 250 foot rear yard setback in some cases.
„ We don't wag ttuiPaild them too close to the Riggory; we just
want to be able t er: on a site that offers some.views--that offers
some amenity. We're not trying to get close to the Riggory." Mr.
Michel noted that some of the outbuildings on the plan appear to be
25 feet from the boundary, or very, very close. Mr. McKee responded:
"That's possible." (Mr. Muller explained that the outbuildings were
small dependencies from the original house.)
Mr. Michel asked for clarification of the "conservation easement"
referred to by the applicant, i.e. who would get it, is it deeded,
would the County Attorney review it?" Mr. McKee responded: "The way
we did it on Panorama Farms--Graymont--I believe that was owned by
the property owner's association. That, by the way, is another example
of re -configuring development rights. although there is really not a
need for that, I guess it could be done just with convenants on the
deed of sale of the lots or with the homes." Mr. Michel expressed
some confusion because it seemed he and Mr. McKee were talking about
two different issues. Mr. Michel explained he was referring to the
Riggory. Mr. ?Michel was under the impression Mr. McKee was "talking
about taking the upper part of the Riggory, 22 acres, and putting
conservation easgwents on it." Mr. ;McKee responded:. "We hadn't
referred to that/a conservation easement." Mr. Bowerman interjected:
'VYou're talking about giving up future development rights regardless
of what we do to the. ordinance." Mr. McKee responded: "Right.
However you want to handle it, we will give it up with the one
132a
May 23, 1989 Page 5
provision that the Mul7ers could continue to live there."
Mr. Michel asked staff: "What do you propose for that?" Mr. Keeler
responded: "The notion with the new plan is that these easements
would run to the County as a third agency. Originally we thought
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, but they've indicated they don't
want to participate in this sort of thing, so it appears that the
County would be holding these easements." Mr. Keeler clarified:
"What we're talking about with the Riggory is that there would be
no division of it, no additional dwellings located on it and the
area of the tract could not otherwise be diminished." He confirmed
this would be "an easement that would run to the County and be
approved by the County Attorney's office."
Mr. McKee noted that he had misunderstood Mr. Michel's reference
to a conservation easement.
Mr. Muller commented briefly and explaine4 that his family wishes to
keep the property and this proposal willa Fiem to do that. He pointed
out that this would be a family project with his son-in-law building
some of the houses.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Stark's question as to what had changed since 1981,
Mr. Keeler explained: "The initial proposal was for additional lots --
they were going to do 28 lots on this tract. This is not a request
for additional lots. There was no public purpose to be served by the
terms of the criteria in the Ordinance under that proposal. We do
feel there is a public purpose to be served by the protection of the
Riggory from subdivision in the future. That distinguishes the current
petition from the prior application." Mr. Keeler continued: "To an
extent this concept is reflected in the proposed cluster division in
the RA in that what we would be looking for would be plans that reflect
the four purposes of the rural areas zone, i.e. preservation of agri-
cultural land..., reservoir watershed protection, natural resource
protection, and historic considerations. So this fits into that
category."
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the basic question was not preservation of
the Riggory, but the appropriateness of this special permit. She
felt it was incorrect to assume that all these lots will develop at
some point in time if this special permit was not granted. She
noted that the property was in an agricultural/forestal district
and changing the nature of that district has the potential of
changing the properties and character of the area. She also noted
that the property was outside a developed rural area.
Mr. Bowerman commented: "I don't have a problem re -configuring lots
and doing this type of project. I would just like to understand
exactly what's going to be gained by the County and the applicant.
It seems to me, in this particular case, assuming that the Riggory
could be developed and that the owner would go ahead and develop
it --this five lots and separate one lot off for the actual house --
that doing so would have a certain value--4 lots plus the Riggory
equals 'x' number of dollars. If you transfer those development
S.03
May 23, 1989 Page 6
rights to the other parcel, they have a value over this other parcel,
plus the Riggory is left.... It seems to me there are economic
advantages that would accrue to the applicant to do so. There are
benefits that would accrue to the County in terms of preservation
of this historic site. So I think there's benefit to both sides
that go beyond just what was presented here. I think the sum of
the pieces is greater than the whole in this particular case.
For my own mind, I want to make sure that I am thinking about it in the
right way. ... One of the things I am wrestling with is we don't have
an historic preservation law and clearly there has to be economic
benefits to do so. ... I am trying to ... come up with a rationale to
look at this thing in a light differently* than we've looked at other
applications, like Panorama Farma, because I think there the sum of
the parts was equal to what we had before. This is something where
benefits .accrue to both parties and I am trying to figure out whether
the public benefit is balanced by doing that.
Staff confirmed that the property was not registered with either State
or Federal agencies as an historic site.
Ms. Diehl stated that though there may be some public good to be
gained by the proposal, it was "more outweighed by the private benefit."
Mr. Keeler was uncertain as to whether the dwelling would qualify as
a State Historic Landmark. He made reference to the proposed Southwest
Mountains Rural Historic District and the setting, rather than the
dwelling.
Referring to Ms. Scala's memo dated May 4, 1989, Mr. Rittenhouse quoted:
"In summary, it is important to protect the setting of the Riggory
Farm, especially as viewed from Rt. 20. An effective way to accomplish
this would be to limit development to the south side of the adjacent ridge."
He noted that no comparison had been made of the two plans in relation
to visibility from Rt. 20.
Referring to Mr. Bowerman's comments about "pluses and minuses", Mr. Michel
stated he felt he was "on to something." He felt staff's reaction to
the proposal was "to encourage them to.pull b.ack.to try to achieve a
real balance." He stated he was not sure he could support the proposed
preliminary plat, but he could support a special use permit.
Mr. Rittenhouse. stated: "I feel the same way. I came here wanting to
try to consider these things separately in my mind, but they are bound
together. They could be separate but they're not. I ser_se,.too, some
of Norma's concerns because there was an elaboratediscussion of mitigating
circumstances for this development in an agricultural/forestal area
and the need to achieve some public benefit, some real measurable
public benefit as a result of allowing it to happen. I sense, too, that
staff's urging of this alternate plan ... as an effort to try to achieve
a better balance to realize a greater benefit to the public through
the views of the scenic resource and perhaps mitigate some of the impact
on the agricultural/forestal region_. I am having a difficult time, also,
because I like the .idea of the 'density transfer."'
S.N
May 23, 1989 Page 7
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Diehl to compare a previous application (Murray
property) to this application in terms of her position. Ms. Diehl
responded that she did not recall for certain how she had voted on
that application, but she noted: "I approve of that concept and I
saw definite public good there ---protection of the reservoir. I thought
the public good was demonstrated there to a greater degree in protection
of the water that was available.... I just felt that was proportionally
of greater benefit than the possibility that I see here."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted he also had some problems with the road issue,
i.e. the applicant prefers a private road vs. the Engineering
Department's recommendation for a public road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission had any flexibility in terms of
possibly approving the special permit but not the preliminary plat.
"We'll approve it if it can be worked out at a final stage if this
is feasible, that we'll take it with Alternate One?"
Mr. Keeler recommended against this approach because he felt it would
severely confuse the Board of Supervisors because it would be saying
"Mr. McKee says this is our proposal and the Commission says, 'Well,
we like the idea but we're not endorsing your proposal."'
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Did you discuss with the applicant the possibility
of leaving this configuration but putting an open -space easement in
here for that particular area of concern, to screen it better?"
Mr. Keeler responded: "This is the first time I have seen the screening
or the cross -sections."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. McKee if this had been considered. Mr. McKee
responded: "We'd be glad to put an open -space easement in where you
see those trees up there. Again, the reason for the lot configuration
and the road alignment is to create lots which are marketable. ...
We feel there is a visual impact of either alternative on the Riggory."
Mr. Keeler commented: "The staff discussed the issue of easements
on these lots, screening and no building in this area and that sort of
thing. We came to the conclusion if you are going to put that many
restrictions on these individual lots, why not just add the property
to the Riggory and reduce the size of these lots. If portions of
these lots are going to extend such enjoyment to the Riggory, then
'Why am I buying the backend of this lot?' That was part of our reasoning
in the proposal-- the idea of buffering and the like. If you recall,
back in planned developments ... elements where the individual lot owner
does not enjoy the full rights of use to the lot, we would rather see
in open space or some other situation because here you are going to
have four lot owners who are going to have to abide by those easements."
Mr. McKee stated: "As far as the ownership of the land that you see
with the wooded buffer, the roughly 100 to 150 foot strip in there that's
green --I don't think there's any problem with dedicating that to the
Riggory proper --transferring ownership of that. I think the concern
on our side is that those lots, numbers 1 through 5, have decent
building sites and by going with the scheme as exactly outlined in
May 23, 1989
Page 8
Alternative One, we don't feel that those building sites are (acceptable)."
Mr. Bowerman again quoted from GIs. Scala's memo the same statement quoted
earlier by Mr. Rittenhouse, and asked Mr. McKee: "Is there any way to
accomplish that goal within what you've just stated you would be willing
to do or does that effectively move the houses down the hill so much
that, in your opinion, they are no longer marketable?"
Mr. McKee responded by calling the Commission's attention to a third
option (Alternative Two) which would adjust the development rights in
such a way that none of the houses would be visible from the Riggory-
He stated this was a plan that was not acceptable to "any of us"
but does what Ms. Scala suggested. He stressed that the applicant
realizes that the plan is not perfect but it is a compromise.
Pointing to the preliminary plan, :sir. Keeler asked Mr. McKee: "You come
around a curve this way in view of the Riggory. It's my opinion that
if this is effective as to the Riggory, it's also effective as to the
view from the public road. So if you agree that this is an effective
screening scheme for the Riggory,. then I think it does answer that
question about the setting. You come around the curve and you see the
Riggory.. What we considered to be, from what the State had said
is that that's all you want to see --the Riggory and its outbuildings.
You don't want to see other residential units that would confuse the
matter. This portion of the road is already currently,.by the fence
line growth and the like, fairly well screened from Rt. 20. So if
you believe that this is an effective screening plan for the Riggory
itself, I think this plan would also be effective from Rt. 20
anywhere .along in here. Of course, from Rt. 649 you'd be able to
look into the development."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked: "But staff opinion is still that it's not,
and hence the recommendation for denial?" fir. Keeler responded that
he had not reviewed the sections but "it did impress me sitting and
looking at the section."
�1r. Keeler continued: "The Planning Staff has been .directed by the
Commission and the Board to recommend to you what is, in our opinion,
the best land use proposal, and any negotiation that seems to be
going on here is to be done by the legislative bodies, by the
Commission and the Board."
Mr. Keeler compared the two plans and noted that it appeared to him
that any of the lots would be visible on both plans, i.e. if the
house were visible on the preliminary plan it would also be visible
on alternative one. He concluded: "Mr. McKee is saying to you that
in either case, you would need some additional screening." He confirmed
that in either plan some houses would be visible from Rt. 20.
Mr. Bowerman asked fir. Keeler: "So you still favor alternative one over
the preliminary?" fir. Keeler responded: "I think Mr. McKee has indicated
that they are willing to add portions of these lots to the Riggory.
That removes some of staff's concern about having to enforce easements
May 23, 1989 Page 9
between adjoining property owners and the like. It adds more land
to the Riggory which was part of our recommendation. And if, in fact,
in either case the screening is going to be effective, it appears to
me at this point to be a 'wash'."
Mr. Bowerman asked: "In order to allow for what you just said, how
would we deal with that?"
Mr. Michel pointed out: "None of that's before us."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "It's not specific because it's. not shown on
the preliminary."
Mr. Keeler stated: "If Mr. McKee wants to give a distance from the
Riggory property line or something along those lines."
Mr. McKee stated: "I think that the applicant would be willing to give
that portion that you see in green to the Riggory and possibly a little
more."
Mr. Bowerman suggested "Why don't you bring it back?" Mr. Rittenhouse
agreed.
There was some discussion as to whether or not a denial or a deferral
was in order. Mr. Bowerman stated a deferral would give the applicant
a chance to change the proposal as discussed. He stated he did not
want to make a recommendation to the Board and then have the plan
changed before the Board hearing.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked that a representative of the Engineer Department
and Ms. Scala be present when the matter is heard by the Commission
again.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-28 for Richard & Geraldine Muller and
the Riggory Preliminary Subdivision Plat be deferred to June 6, 1989.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Palais Royale Office and Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
construct 10,040 square feet of office and warehouse space on 3.0 acres.
Proposal is to be served by 23 parking spaces and have access from a
private road accessing South Pantops Drive. Property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcel 15C, is located 400 feet west of the intersection of
South Pantops Drive and Riverbend Drive. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial
in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the applicant's request
for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously.
-4-97
May 23, 1989
Page 10
Upcoming Work Session Items - It was decided the Commission would look
over this list and it would be discussed at a later meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
DS
Acting Secretary
.389