HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 18 88 PC MinutesOctober 18, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 18, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimbefg,
Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. John Pullen;
Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowlin, 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 October 4, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to add
66.730 acres to the existing Moorman's River District. Property is located
on Route 658 near Ivy Farms Subdivision.
Addition to Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to add
15.005 acres to the existing Free Union District. Property is located off
Route .668 about 3 miles northwest of Free Union.
Buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to create the Buck
Mountain District containing 616.840 acres. Property is located off Routes
671 and 664 in the vicinity of Buck Mountain near Free Union.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Consent Agenda be
adopted. The motion passed unanimously.
Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District - .Located on St. Rts. 676 and 657
adjacent to Ivy Creek and the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The proposed
district contains 483.787 acres in 15 parcels. Applicants are proposing a
seven year time period before initial review. Jack Jouette Magisterial District.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick addressed the Commission and explained that she had
helped to put the district together. She offered to answer questions.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
for
October 18, 1988 Page 2
mr. Stark moved that the Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended for adoption including the Kalergis property if it is
eligible at the time of Board review.
,Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-88-12 Phillip Sansone - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to rezone approximately 45 acres from R-1, Residential to R-10
Residential. Property, described as Tax Map.78, Parcel 8 and 581, is located
on the east side of St. Rt. 20N approximately 1/2 mile north of its intersection
with Rt. 250. Rivanna Magisterial District.
and
SP-88-76 Phillip Sansone - Request in accordance with Section.17.2.2(5 & 11)
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allox for a
private day care school and professional offices. Property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcel 8 and 58I, is located on the east side of St. Rt. 20N
approximately 1/2 mile north of its intersection with Rt. 250. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both the rezoning
and the special permit.
There was some confusion about the applicant's proffer. Mr. Horne explained
that the applicant's proffer was actually the last page of the document on
the Lafayette academy letterhead. Mr. Horne confirmed that the proffer
would be clarified before Board review. Mr. Pullen explained the proffer
as follows: "What the applicant is proffering is to only develop approximately
15 acres of the 45 acre request for professional offices and private.school
use and that access to any of these parcels be restricted to the existing
private road." He added: "The applicant is proffering to restrict development
of the professional offices and the academy to 15 acres so that the remaining
30 acres can be devoted to residential use."
Regarding the private road access, fir. Bowerman asked: "Is the applicant
proffering that that be the only access point or is he proffering that
that would not be a public road?" Mr. Pullen replied: "He's proffering
whatever standard this road may be when these parcels develop in the future
then they will be limited to essentially one point of access" whether it's a
private road or a public road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any discussion with the applicant about the
possibility of rezoning just the 15 acres necessary for the school at this
time. Mr. Pullen responded negatively.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Chuck Caldwell represented the applicant. He explained it was the
applicant's intent to convert part of the property to a school for
learning disabled children. He stated that currently the school is providing
services for 10 children. He confirmed that Mr. Pullen's statement of
the applicant's proffer was accurate.
October 18, 1988
Page 3
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt condition No. 3 [Enrollment shall be limited to a
specific number of students.] should be quantified. There was considerable
discussion about this issue. It was determined the property was not currently
served by public water and sewer, but they were relatively close to the
property. Mr. Caldwell explained the applicant had met with the Water and
Sewer Authority and the property has its own water source and its own 10,000
gallon tank and pumping station and it has been determined that connection to
public utilities is not necessary because what exists is sufficient to serve
the property. It was felt that Health Department approval should be a
decisive factor in determining maximum enrollment. It was determined no
students would be housed on site. It was felt that the number of staff would
also have to be taken into consideration when determining septic system
capacity. It was finally decided condition No. 3 would be amended to
read:
a Enrollment shall be limited to 60 students. Total students, staff and
clients shall be limited by Health Department approval.
Ms. Diehl felt that if this property were rezoned to R-10, the rest of the
parcel would have to be served by public sewer when it was developed.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that a condition be added requiring that when the R-10
property developed, this site would also have to be served by public water
and sewer. Commissioners Wilkerson and Diehl agreed with this suggestion.
Mr. Horne suggested the following condition to address this issue:
Any additional residential development of this property will require
connection to public water and sewer and at that time the private school
and professional offices will be required to connect to public utilities
also.
it be made clear that the
Ms. Diehl asked that / handwritten statement at the bottom of the applicant's
letter of proffer "in no way binds us to that particular current road and.
entrance if the Highway Department wants a relocation of the entrance."
Ms. Diehl wanted it to be clear that this handwritten statement was not being
accepted. (The statement referred to by Ms. Diehl was as follows: "We wish to
use the current road on the property and do not wish to put in a new road on the
property nor wish to have milti-drives.")
Mr. Horne asked the applicant to clarify his intent in regards to this statement.
Ms. Diehl asked the applicant to clarify that "your statement in no way implies
that you do not intend to comply with VDOT recommendations." Mr. Caldwell
responded: "We do intend to meet whatever their requirements are."
It was determined the handwritten statement was not a part of the proffer.
Ms. Diehl asked if it was necessary to rezone parcel 58I at this time. She
suggested there might be some benefit to gradual movement to higher density.
She wondered if the "same thing couldn't be accomplished by rezoning the
one parcel."
/0 9
October 18, 1988
Page 4
There was some discussion about the proposed density of the property. It
was pointed out that the property is currently shown as low density (4 units/acre)
but is recommended for medium density (5.5 to 10 units) in the new Comp Plan.
Ms. Diehl felt that since R-10 is at the upper end of the medium density zoning,
"wouldn't it make more sense to have a gradual reduction in density toward the
rural area and have the 15-acre parcel, if not left in tact, then zoned as
an R-6 property so you would get a gradual alteration in that density rather
than just having R-10 abutting the rural area?"
tiir. Bowerman asked the applicant whtype of residential units were planned
for the remainder of the property. The applicant replied that that had not
been determined at this point.
Referring to the newly proposed Comprehensive Plan, -Mr. Bowerman stated that
the Commission had agreed with staff that "we should maintain the holding
capacity of the urban area, and at least do that if not increase it, to
allow for the fact that some areas were undevelopable and at the same time
we wanted to restrict development a little.bit further in the rural areas."
He added: "According to that recommendation I have no real qualms about what
is before us in terms of this (R-10) zoning. I think it's appropriate for
that area." He added, however "If the Board takes part of it and accepts
this part of it and doesn't accept the rural package, I'm not going to be
too pleased about that. ... That's the only thing that gives me pause
and I think the. Board should be aware of that if we choose to approve this,
that our recommendations for this area were recommendations not only for this
area, but a whole land use plan as a package, not as individual components."
Mr. Michel stated he would have no problem with rezoning the.15 acres needed
for the school and professional offices, but he was nervous, procedurally,
about rezoning the remainder of the property without the typical reviews
for a Comprehensive Plan change.
Mr. Wilkerson and tits. Diehl indicated agreement.
It was determined the Commission could recommend rezoning for a smaller
amount of property than the applicant was requesting.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the revised proffer should state that the residue
acreage is for residential development and if that property is not rezoned
at this time, it could be subject to other types of uses other than
residential. fir. Keeler also stated that in relation to a change in zoning
density, "you may want to discuss the possibility of an additional setback
or additional buffer." He felt that would accomplish the same purpose.
It was determined the special permit was only being issued to the 15 acres.
Mr. Horne stated: "I think it's clear in everyone's mind that that is the
intent of the applicant and whether that needs to be accomplished with a
proffer or through the special permit, I'm not sure. It could certainly
be in an amended proffer. It would just be a statement that it would.
be subject to residential use."
It was finally decided the Commission was not opposed to issuing the special
permit on 15 acres and rezoning only those 15 acres centered around the
existing complex of buildings. Though there was no plat available which gave
an accurate description of the 15 acres in question, staff stated a plat
would be made available, along with an accurate description, at the time
of Board review.
//0
October 18, 1988
Page 5
It was determined the applicant's proffer would still apply, but to the 15
acres only.
The applicant was agreeable to this approach and also expressed no objections
to the suggested amended conditions of approval for the special permit
as previously discussed.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-88-12 for Phillip Sansone, to rezone 15 acres
of property centered directly around the concentration of buildings on the
site, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, .with the
understanding that at the time of Board review a plat will be available
showing the delineation of the 15 acres, and with the further understanding
that this recommendation is subject to the acceptance of the applicant's
proffers..
(The applicant agreed that the proffers would only apply to the 15 acres
in question.)
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-88-76 for Phillip Sansone be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. This special use permit is issued to the Lafayette Academy and Garnett
Day Treatment Center and is non -transferable .
2. Administrative approval of the site plan.
3. Enrollment shall be limited to 60 students. Total students, staff and
clients shall be limited by Health Department approval.
4. Any additional residential development of this property will require
connection to public water and sewer and at that time the private school and
professional offices will be required to connect to public utilities also.
(Ms. Diehl noted that this condition "was recognizing that this is the
property that is not at this point in time rezoned.")
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
These matters were to be heard by the Board on November 16, 1988.
SP- 88-69 Richard Thomsen, Jr. - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(28)
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special use permit
allowing for the transfer of two division rights. Property, described as
Tax Map 72, Parcel 13, located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of Rt. 635 and Rt. 688; Parcel 27 has access to the east side of Rt. 688
approximately 1,200' north of its intersection with St. Rt. 635.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. The report concluded: "This application
does not meet the criteria for a special use permit as outlined in Section 10.5.2
of the Zoning Ordinance and staff recommends denial of this special use
permit."
October 18, 1988
Page 6
The staff report stated the issue as tollows: "In order to allow for
subdivision, the applicant is requesting that a development right be
transferred from anon --adjacent parcel to parcel 27. Staff strongly
recommends against this approach (i.e. transferring development potential
from non-continguous tracts) and would recommend that this proposal be
be reviewed as a request for an additional development right and not
a transfer of development rights....."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Aar. Richard Thomsen, Jr. addressed the Commission. He gave a history
of the property and division rights. He explained that one division
right had originally been intended to be granted to lot 1, but
when it was discovered that division right could not be placed on
the 21-acre parcel it was placed, "on staff recommendation," on lot
6. He felt this was due to a misunderstanding of the process. He
stressed that the division right could be given to any other lot except
lot l.. Air. Thomsen made some comments about road plans and about the
impracticality of using the property for a tree farm. He added that
current agricultural use of the bottom land would likely continue.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Norton Burton addressed the Commission and expressed some concern about
the applicant's property cutting off access to some of his property.
Mr. Horne explained: "When and if we receive a subdivision plat on that
subject property we will have note of Air. Burton's name and that.will be
the point at which we plat an easement."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowlin to comment on the issue of transfer of
development rights. Mr. Bowlin responded: "Our office feels that staff's
proposal is the correct way of addressing the problem that is before the
Commission, that's a special use permit process. In order to do a transfer
of development rights you need express enabling legislation from the
General Assembly and that doesn't exist at this point in time."
Because some of the Commissioners expressed some confusion about the
two development rights, Mr. Fritz explained the issue again: "This 21
acres --by giving them one development right does not allow for the division
of the property, the reason being you create a two -acre parcel, you now
have a 19-acre residue and would need a development right at that point.
By giving it two development rights, you are giving it one development
for that five --acre parcel, or two -acre parcel, and you are giving it
the development right for the residue which is under twenty-one acres
to stand on its own: In this case, you are transferring the development
right down to allow for the creation of five acres, which is the one
we talked about that is administratively approved, and an additional
development right for the 15-acre lot to stand on its own, and that
comes from the plat that's in your packet."
October 18, 1988 Page 7
Mr. Bowerman added: "It's important to go back to the original application
four years ago when the applicant came in and he had certain development
rights that went with that property and at that time he used them all
up plus he got the 21=acre rights in addition to that, so those were all
used up including the one that went to the first lot. Ithink that's where
the rights originally came from plus the creation of the exempt 21-acre
lot. So there was something that went on before this to create that
21-acre exempt lot which has to stand on its own. -In order to be subdivided,
you need the two division rights because one of the remaining lots is
obviously going to be less than 21 acres so it can't be done as an
exempt lot of 21 acres."
Mr. Horne explained further: "The 21 acre parcel in this case does not have
any development rights --it doesn't need one because it is above 21. So you
give it one from a transfer, that still won't do what needs to be done
for this applicant because by definition as soon as you divide it, you
are going to have two lots below 21 acres. So he's got to find another
one so he's going to try to take that off lot 13, or stated to take it off
13, but really just be allowed an additional development right. Then he's
got 2 where he had none, can divide the 21-acre in half or whatever the
proposal is, and then each one has enough development rights to stand on its
own as a size less than 21 acres."
Mr. .Bowerman stressed: "So it's important to recognize that if we granted a special
use permit we would create one additional right above what we originally created
when we did the subdivision in 1984 recognizing that the applicant by right had
m7re rights than he chose to exercise."
Mr. Stark moved that SP-88-69 for Richard Thomsen be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Michel stated he would not support the motion because he would give the
applicant the "benefit of the doubt" that this was just an honest mistake
and wasn't something they were tyring to get around.
The motion for denial passed (6:1) with Mr. Michel casting the dissenting vote.
The matter was to be heard by the Board November 16, 1988.
SP-88-77 University Village Limited Partnership - Request in accordance with
Section 17.2.2(9) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use
permit to allow for a nursing home to be operated in conjunction with the
University Village Retirement Center. Property, described as Tax Map 60,
Parcel 53 is located on the north side of Rt. 601 (Old Ivy Road) between Ivy
Gardens Apartment and Huntington Village. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
/43
October 18, 1988
Page 8
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Wyant who offered no significant
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
1n response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to whether the use would be
used primarily by residents of University Village, Mr. Wyant explained
that was the main purpose but Medicare and Medicade requirements will
not allow that the use be limited to any particular group.
Mr. Michel stated that the application was in order and moved that SP-88-77
for University Village Ltd. Partnership be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for.approval subject to the following conditions:
1. -Nursing home facility shall be limited to 40 beds. Future expansion shall
require amendment to this special permit.
2. approval of the appropriate state and local agencies.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board -November 16, 1988.
University Village Request for administrative Approval of Site Plan - Mr.
Pullen gave a brief staff report. Staff felt the request was appropriate
because of the following: "The development of this property has been
under extensive review by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors over the last five years . This would include rezoning
request and site plan approval. The applicant will install practically
all stormwater detention structures and will require landscaping
materials for the first phase of development. access to this property
has been approved by staff and the Virginia.Department of Transportation
and staff has determined that the additional phases of development are
in compliance with the proffered rezoning to the property. Staff
recommends that the Commission grant the applicant's request."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that staff be granted administrative approval of
University Village Phases 2 through 5. fir. Jenkins seconded the motion
which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35.
John Horne, Secretary
DS