HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 30 89 PC MinutesMay 30, -1989`
The Albemarle County Planning Commissioi2 held.a=public hearing on
Tuesday, May 31, 1989, Meeting Room 7, Caunty_OTfice Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present-iaere: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice -Chairman; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma D$ehl; Mr. Tim Michel;
and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials presentr:-.Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler; Chief of Planning;
Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; and Mr.
George St. John, 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 16, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of three parcels
totalling approximately 574 acres located on a private road south of
Rt. 697 near north Garden. The proposed time period is ten years.
Planning Commission must accept application.
Mr. Michel moved that the application for the Chalk Mountain Agricultural
Forestal District be accepted. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which
passed unanimously.
Dunlora Phase 2 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 118 acres from 135.7
acres, with a minimum lot size of 0.25 acre. Phase 1 (not yet signed)
consists of 157 lots from 122 acres. Dunlora Phase 2 preliminary plat
was originally approved December, 1987 and has since expired. Property,
described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 16, is located on the east side of
Rt. 631 (Rio Road) north of Pen Park and across from the CATEC Center.
Zoned R-4, Residential. Rivanna Magisterial District.
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda due to objection received
from an adjacent owner. It was scheduled for review by the Commission
on June 13, 1989.
Somerset Farms Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 25 lots from two
existing parcels totalling 403.2 acres. These lots will be served by
an internal public road. Properties described as Tax Map 81, Parcels
18 and 19A are located on the east side of Rt. 20 South, approximately
2000 feet north of the intersection of Rt. 742 and Rt. 20. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Staff requested deferral to allow time for more adequate review.
387
ylay 30, 1989 Page 2
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by fir. Michel, that the Somerset Farms
Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed
unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Jefferson Park avenue/Fontaine Avenue
Neighborhood Study Area - Mr. Benish led the discussion and briefly
reviewed -further information on the Study which had been requested by the
Commission. Mr. Benish was assisted by Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Benish
explained that the purpose of tonight's review was to "provide a
process to.coordinate the final recommendations between the City, County
and the University prior to scheduling a public hearing." He explained
that this was the Commission's opportunity to make comments to the Board
of Supervisors. He added that after the Board has made a final determination,
a public hearing will be held to review Comprehensive Plan changes.
Staff confirmed that the public hearing would not be on this "Study"
document but rather on "the recommendations contained in this plan
that (the Commission and Board) are going to accept and incorporate
into the County's Comprehensive Plan."
It was noted the City had accepted the document but had not as yet incorporated
any of it into its. Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated it is
hoped that the County and City will reach a consensus as to what will be
incorporated in the comprehensive plans, but there is no requirement that
the same recommendations be adopted. It was noted that the recommendations
in the Study would work only if there was cooperation between the three
sovereign powers.
Two issues generated a significant amount of discussion: (1) Proposal
for medium density residential designation south of I-64, between Sunset
Blvd. and Route 29; and(2) The property being considered by the University
Real Estate foundation for a new sports complex.
Regarding the medium density issue, Ms. Diehl stated she could not support
medium density away from the road; but she could accept medium density in
that area adjacent to the access (Sunset Blvd.). Mr. !Michel agreed with
Ms. Diehl. He noted that though he could "go with getting a net density
out of it, (he) did not like this swath of medium density carelessly
thrown in." Both Ms. Diehl and fir. Michel felt the density should reflect
the recently designated land use plan in the Comprehensive Plan. Both
Commissioners Diehl and Michel were opposed to seeing an "upzoning"
done in this manner. Mr. Michel stated it was like "backing into zoning
after a whole lot of work." It was finally agreed the Commission could
accept some medium density residential in that area that can have access
from Sunset Blvd.
Regarding the property being considered for the University's new sports
complex, it was the consensus of the Commission that "although under .
consideration for alternative uses, it is not intended the site be -developed
to any scale for which parking cannot be accommodated on site." (Mr.
Keeler pointed out that this is but one development concern of this site.)
It was also the determination of the Commission that study areas should
be consistent with study areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
'376
May 30, 1989
Page 3
Mr. Stark moved that the Planning Commission forward the JPA/Fontaine
Avenue Neighborhood Study to the Board of Supervisors indicating its
general agreement with the Study's recommended Comprehensive Plan
Amendments except for the following comments and recommendations:
(1) The two alternative north -south connectors (Sunset Avenue/Fontaine
Avenue and Sunset Avenue/Route 29) should not be shown on the land
use map.
(2) Those areas that correspond to the eastern half of areas noted as
D-2 (Exhibit 6a) in the Study are appropriate for medium density
residential, and all other areas south of I-64, East of Sherwood
Farms and west of Sunset Avenue, should remain low density. This
area should be developed under a consolidated planned development
sensitive to environmental and topographical restraints. Allowance
should be made for clustering of dwelling units at higher net densities.
(3) The property currently being considered for a new sports complex by
the University of Virginia (noted as B-1 in Exhibit 6a)should
not be developed to any scale for which parking cannot be
accommodated on site.
(4) PACC Area B Study Area boundaries should conform with Comprehensive
Plan Neighborhood boundaries. Inclusion of Sherwood Farms and ex-
clusion of the southwest quadrant of the I-64/U.S. 29 interchange
is inconsistent with Neighborhood 5 of the Comprehensive Plan Urban
Area.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Proposed Zoning Text Amendments - Mr. Keeler presented the staff reports on
proposed zoning text amendments related to Open Space, Septic Disposal
System, and Critical Slopes. Mr. Keeler explained the amendments in
some detail.
Some members of the Commission expressed some confusion about the intent
of the amendments, i.e. what are they intended to accomplish? The staff
report explained:
"Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards of the current
Comprehensive Plan emphasizes protection of environmentally
sensitive areas from development. In recent subcommittee
work session, the Community Development division has recom-
mended expansion of area to be protected.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance contains a combination of
regulations and incentives to attempt to achieve these
protection efforts. Among the incentive provision are
cluster development options in all urban residential zones
and various planned development zoning districts. The
strategy of these approaches is to provide a method to
achieve these protection efforts without penalizing the
developer by reducing density."
89/
May 30, 1989 Page 4
Mr. Keeler further explained the amendments were intended to provide
better protection to sensitive areas. In response to Mr. Bowerman's
question, Mr. Keeler confirmed the changes would allow the Commission
to be more environmentally sensitive to development on specific tracts
of land, and would also give staff more leverage in the design of
individual lots. It was noted that with the current ordinance staff
is operating at a disadvantage because though developers voluntarily
propose clustering, they don't have to -meet the requirements of 4.7.3
andthus staff does not have much control in the design of individual
lots. ,.result of this has been that "we are not seeing many planned
development rezonings, but are seeing proffered plans that have open
space on them:"
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if thiswouldinvite an undesirable increase in
density that would impact such issues as transportation networks. Mr.
Keeler responded that the density would not be impacted because it is
controlled by zoning or a rezoning application.
Referring to.. the Critical Slopes provisions, Mr. St. John noted that
the difference between the current regulations and the proposed amendments
"is that we are already interpreting the ordinance to prohibit parking
lots, etc. on steep slopes, but if you have a level building site at
one level and then an intervening 25% slope and somewhere on the same
parcel of land you have another level area which could be used as a
parking lot without violating the steep slope concept --as I read this
everything has to go on the same building site. You can't have two
building sites that are not contiguous to each other and utilize both of
them. If that is the intent here, I think it ought to be inthe record.
I think the way the ordinance is spelled out, as I read it, you can't
do that. I think something ought to be in the record to clarify whether
or not you can do that."
Mr. Keeler replied: "I don't think that is the intent necessarily."
He explained that it was a matter of "an interpretation of building site."
He stated: (If there are two perfectly developable sections) and there
is a narrow band of steep slope --we have used an area less than 80 feet
in width --it wouldn't show if you did it from USGS. So in those cases
we have recommended that that area is insignificant."
Mr. St. John indicated understanding, but asked: "Suppose there is
an intervening area that is significant. ... This seems to require
that it all be put in one building site that can't be more than
five times as long as it is wide. ... Could you, or not, use both of
those level sites for septic field or parking or some activity... that
doesn't go on the same building site with the main building, yet
you've got a flat area somewhere else that it could go on but for
this provision."
Mr. Keeler responded: "I think the Commission could authorize the guy
installing the drive through that area to get back to the other parking
area back here. .But I think if he just wanted to ignor the sensitivity
of the steep areas, I think this language at the end would give the
Commission the authority to let him go across that road."
May 30, 1989 Page 5
Mr. St. John stated: "It would require a waiver in order to use both of
those level. sites?"
Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes.,':if :the Commission deemed it was significant."
Mr. St. John's concern dealt with the public interest to be served. He
stated the "burden is on the developer to give reasons why you should
grant him a waiver."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "Strict application of the requirements of section
4.2 would not further the purposes of this Ordinance. ... If he had
two flat areas that were disconnected by some area of sensitivity,
it doesn't seem to makesense to me, unless he had to tear up a lot
of land and ruin the sensitive area. ... But I think this would con-
template a situation like you mentioned where we could look favorably
on a waiver request."
Mr. Keeler explained: "I think this would applicable, primarily, in
site plan situations..... Usually what we get is someone who wants
to come along and cut it all down to the same level."
Mr. Stark moved that a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance
(ZTA-87-16) by repealer of Section 4.7.3 Open Space, Character and adoption
of Section 4.7.3 Open Space, Design Requirements, be adopted.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There was a very brief discussion about the possibility of amending Section
4.16 in relation to recreation areas in the flood plain. No action was
taken.
Work Program - Mr. Keeler reviewed upcoming work session topics. He
added an addittmi topic as item 2a, the Milton Growth Area.
Brief comments were made about the Parking Space Schedule and the
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman noted that he would like to see the implementation of a
"Gateway Study", i.e. how to control the visual impact of Rt. 29N
above the river.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
DS
1zQa&V_1
Acting Secretary
.193
�AAt
¢
•" ���!'{p'
'�:.
pia �'�}
z _
;i
•r. Y ..ti ^�
' N