Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 19 89 PC MinutesSeptember 19, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 19, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. David. Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Bowerman and Wilkerson. The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 7, 1989 were approved as submitted. SP--89-49 Phil & Mary Sheridan - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(28) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a 12 lot resort community subdivision in the rural areas. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcels 33A & 33B, is located on the west side of St. Rt. 801, access on the west side of Rt. 673. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from September 12, 1989 Commission Meeting. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-89-49 for Phil & Mary Sheridan be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-89-9 Rio Hill West - Request to rezone 11.319 acres from R-6, Residential to C-1, Commercial and 22.699 acres from R-6, Residential to R-15, Residential. Property described as Tax.Map 45, Parcels 29B, 29C, 29D, 29E, 91, 92, 93A1, 94, 95A, 109C,.are located on the west side of the proposed Berkmar Drive Extension adjacent to the rear of Rio Hills Shopping Center. Charlottesville Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-89-9 for Rio Hills West be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. CPA-89-02 JPA/Fontaine - Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Compre- hensive Plan to include the recommendations of the Jefferson Park Avenue "Area B" Study. Includes land use map and text changes in Neighborhoods 5 & 6. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. In response to Ms. Diehl's questions, Mr. Benish explained how the boundaries had been determined. Mr. Diehl felt it was important that the area be accurately delineated and described in the Plan, including the specific acreage. /2R September 19, 1989 Page 2 GIs. Diehl expressed concern that unless there was a definitive delineation there would be a push in the future to expand the medium density. There was discussion about how to describe the boundaries. Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that boundaries could be specifically discussed at the Board meeting and though not made a part of the Plan, the Board's minutes would reflect the boundaries on which the Board's action had been based. Ms. Diehl agreed with that suggestion, though she asked that an acreage still be included in the staff report, i.e. an approximate. acreage. Mr. Benish pointed out that though this was not consistent with past Commission actions, he did not think it would be a problem. Mr. Benish stressed that what staff feels is a very important addition is the "desire to bring this under a planned development." The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Ned Stevenson, an .adjoining property owner, addressed the.Commission. He objected to the rezoning to medium density because he felt the quality of life of the neighborhood would be destroyed particularly in terms of the enormous increase in traffic. He felt the changes were unwarranted. In response to fir. Rittenhouse's request, Mr. Benish explained the origin and history of the proposed change. Ms. Margaret Stevenson addressed the Commission. She asked for clari- fication as to how much property was being considered for development, 30 acres or 200 acres? She, too, expressed concern about the traffic impact on inadequate and dangerous roads. Mr. Gordon Granger addressed the Co.:ission. He explained that he had served on one of the committees which had studied this proposal. He felt his time on the committee had been wasted and the taxpayersv. money had been wasted on the consultant because 90% of the report had been prepared by Mr. Horne (County) and Mr. Huja (City). He stated the resulting proposal had "not necessarily been a consensus of the people." "GIs. Diehl asked Mr. Granger if it had been the suggestion of the citizens' committee that the parcel suggested for medium density in Neighborhood V be upgraded to medium density. Mr. Granger responded that he felt it was the suggestion of Mr. Horne. Mr. Rittenhouse asked how the Committee had reacted to the suggestion, regardless of who had made the suggestion. Mr. Granger stated he did not think, generally, the committee had been opposed to the proposal. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. /30 September 19, 1989 Page 3 Ms. Diehl asked that it be made clear that the suggestion for medium density had not originated with the Planning Commission as had been insinuated by Mr. Stevenson. She explained that there had been a citizens' committee appointed to study the proposal for each neighborhood involved. She also pointed out that it had been through the Commission's efforts that the "total suggested increase in area was reduced to a lower acreage from the original suggestion." She also noted that she agreed that she did not thinkthis density increase was -appropriate at this point in time. In response to Mr. Stark's question, Mr. Benish explained that this area (west of Sunset Ave., south of I-64) was originally designated as low density. He confirmed that this was how it had been presented during the Comprehensive Plan work sessions. Ms. Diehl noted that was one problem she had with this proposal to change the density at this time. In response to Mr. Stark's question as to what will happen if the Commission chooses not to recommend the medium density, Mr. Benish explained that the Comprehensive Plan would basically remain as is. Mr. Jenkins stressed that it was important that people understand that because of the pressure to restrict development in the watershed area, this area, which is outside the watershed, is seen as an opportunity for higher density growth. He also referred to the road issue and pointed out that the Highway Department does not address the issue of inadequate roads until there is development.. Ms. Diehl moved that CPA-89-02 JPA/Fontaine Avenue be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following change: • Delete references to the medium density residential west of Sunset Avenue near its extension with Stagecoach Road. Ms. Diehl explained her motion: "We had essentially been to public hearing very shortly before this report and when it went though our Comprehensive Plan review, we did increase the density ... but we did increase the densities of those remaining lands in the urban area to reflect increase in densities moving it away from the watershed. So I feel we have accommodated increased growth in that area and for that reason I would recommend it with the change as stated." Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Stark pointed out that no development proposal is being considered at this time, but rather the area is just being prepared for future development. /.3/ September 19, 1989 Page 4 �Ir. Michel stated that though.he understood ms. Diehl's reason for the suggested change to the amendment, he would not vote for the motion as stated because he had some sympathy for medium density in this. location because of the existence of utilities and the future road plans. He added, however, that he did think the timing was "atrocious" but he did not feel that was anyone's fault, but was just "the way it happened." Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the proposed land use on the land use :,tap did not pre -suppose that that development would itw.ediately take place with no improvements in utilities or facilities and before development could go forward, deficiencies in transportation would have to be addressed. He summarized: "I, too, am reluctant to support the Motion because I have to feel that this is also the result of some sound planning that started from the community level, then evolved in the joint planning efforts of both the City and the County and the University and has come to us with .some basis in good planning." :GIs. Diehl stated she did not feel removing 30 acres suggested for medi= density would undermine the efforts of the joint Committee. Mr. Stark felt that though the timing may have been "incorrect," a lot of thought had gone into this planning process. Mr. Michel pointed out that when this proposal was first presented there had been a much larger area proposed for medium density. He concluded that he could agree with what was proposed at this point. The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for approval as stated by his. Diehl. The motion failed to pass (2:3). The Chairman called for an alternative motion. Mr. Michel moved that CPA-89-02 JPA/Fontaine be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as submitted by staff with the stipulation that a definitive acreage for the medium density area be determined. (.Ir. Benish stated that the medium density area was approximately 30 developable acres.) Mr. Rittenhouse asked that the record be clear that the Commission's action was based on the understanding that the medium density area would be approximately 30 acres. Mr. Stark seconded the motion. GIs. Diehl stated she would support the motion because it was a much better proposal than was presented originally. The motion for approval passed unanimously. September 19, 1989 Page 5 Miscellaneous Mr. Stark gave a brief report on the progress of the Solid Waste Task Force Committee. Virginia Department of Forestry Site Plan - Information Only (Deferred to October 10, 1989) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. DS /3.1 I