Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB199300001 Application 1993-03-04 q3- 601 APPLICATION FOR , AI.Bg County of Albemarle PLANNING COMMISSION i'iiiiiu Department of Planning and Communi.y Development °►�1 '®e, 401 McIntire Road Review of a arlo „vir R5AWN (14 Copies Required for First Submittal, 5 Copies Required for Revision) �JL Ordinance d PRELIMINARY PLAT ❑ Extension of o I to 9 lots = $565 PRIOR to Expiration Only($35) 10 to 19 lots = $880 — 0 Ordinance Waiver ($140) 20 or more Iots=$106 (Attach written justification) ❑ FINAL PLAT 0 Relief of Conditions of Prior Approval ($140) I to 9 lots =$565 Prior File Name/Number 10 to 19 lots = $880 20 or more lots = $1060 ❑ Appeal to Board of Supervisors ($190) Prior File Name/Number ,/ [g (g3 `�kL1 Date Submitted :TAM1ARA 1� 199q 2 Fee Paid and/or Fee Due TITLE OF PROJECT DrFR\'/(13.O - gFuluo►,1 Number of Lots -74 Acreage of Site Average Size Type Use Residue Other LOCATION paTcltrl5 f4 1:i fX►g 11.1ti f R{\1coffl LIxtelFf 014 P•. (.041`I Magisterial District 1S1 VA4 IN1R Existing Zoning R-1 • Tax Map ?)Z-C Parcel(s) OWNER/DEVELOPER [(11')FRl Q. c1•J1 ORIA H. E101zipti Address�25 rOREm Fi1fX„E RO Tel. 9-1N— 5D 11 EoRt_`(Ssl it1E vr). 2Zq 3(n SURVEYOR/ARCHITECT/LAND PLANNER MF1RI Cara c� . Address Ql L Moa iILEtin R.D 2Z9o2 Tel. G-1-1 -C)?f75 CONTACT PERSON P AR I 1\NIA Cc.E Address Tel. OWNER/APPLICANT SHALL READ AND SIGN • The Subdivision Plat application process includes providing the Planning Commission with all the informa- tion required in the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance, Chapter 18 of the County Code. • The foregoing information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have read and understand the provisions of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance applicable to this ap- plication. ,� • Signed ►�,,n�'l 4./w —mow" R FC (0 r, Contract Purchaser, Agent) fkiAR 4 1993 JAN 1 1 199S Planning Dept. Planning Dept. 04)(49.,-, -w ��RG1N�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 2%-5823 January 13 , 1993 Brent Nelson Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Deerwood Section 3, Parcel 2 Preliminary Plat Dear Brent: The Planning staff has determined that your submittal for the Deerwood subdivision is not in order for review, therefore, the plat has been dismissed. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and not R-4 , Residential as listed on the application and plat. If the owner chooses to pursue this project as proposed, a rezoning application would have to be made to request the appropriate zoning for the subdivision. It should be noted the Comprehensive Plan recommends this area as Industrial Service land use designation. The next submittal date for rezonings is February 22, 1993 . I recommend you contact Bill Fritz for a preliminary conference prior to submittal of any further applications. I am hereby returning the application and preliminary plats which you submitted on January 11, 1993 . By copy of this letter, I am returning the check for the $1, 060 fee to Robert Burton. Sincerely, ,x.4_/(-34„,L91 Richard E. Tarbell Senior Planner RET/mem cc: Robert 0. and Victoria H. Burton Mrs. R. 0. Burton Page 2 June 4, 1993 If you should have any questions or comments regrding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcw cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Ella Carey Roudabush, Gale & Associates Earl & Victoria Burton ZMA-93-05 Rod & Victoria Burton - Pet ' - ' on to rezone 18 . 5 acres from RA , 2ural Areas to R-4 , Reside ial . Property, described as Tax Map 32C, Section 3 , parcel 2 is located south of and adjacent to the existing Deerwood Subdivision. A preliminary plat is being reviewed concurrently (SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminary Plat) . This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Industrial Service. Deferred from the May 4 , 1993 Planning Commission Meeting. AND SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminary Plat - Proposal to subdivide a portion of 18 . 5 acres into 38 single family lots and 36 6-3-93 2 townhouse lots. Access is through existing roads in Deerwood Subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 32C, Section 3 , Parcel 2 is located south of and adjacent to the existing Deerwood Subdivision. A request to rezone the property to R-4 , Residential is being reviewed concurrently (ZMA-93-05) . This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Industrial Service. Deferred from the May 4 , 1993 Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. In response to the Commission ' s previous concerns about the safety of the intersection at Rt. 649 , Mr. Fritz ' s memo of May 25 stated: "Staff has contacted VDOT and has obtained comments from them. The comments indicate that the nature and alignment for the improvements to Route 649 are unknown at this time. The comments of VDOT establish that the proposed development alone would necessitate the need for right and left turn lanes. VDOT states that the existing level of traffic at the entrance to Deerwood is at or above capacity for the design of the current entrance. . . . The Department of Transportation has stated that ' the addition of greater numbers of unprotected turning movements on a high-volume secondary road can only lead to increased accident rates and reduced level of service ' . From this statement it is apparent that the increase in traffic would not be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare without the provision of right and left turn lanes. The additional comments of VDOT reinforce their previous statements and staff' s concerns in recommending for denial of ZMA-93-05 remains unchanged. " Mr. Blue asked if the applicant had received a copy of staff ' s memo. Mr. Fritz stated the memo had been sent to the applicant (or possibly the applicant' s representative) at the same time it had been sent to the Commission. Mr. Blue noted that Ms. Burton had indicated to him "last night" (by phone) that she had not seen the memo. Mr. Nitchmann asked how it is determined that the existing entrance is "at or above capacity. " Mr. Fritz stated it was his understanding that determination is based on the lane widths and pavement strength of the entrance. Mr. Cilimberg added that turning movements on Rt. 649 are also a consideration. Mr. Cilimberg also explained: "The capacity of roadways are based on the ability of that intersection to handle the turning movements. It is an engineering calculation that is based on the number of lanes and the turning movements that occur and how they effect delays in traffic at that particular location. " Staff confirmed there was no sight distance problem at the intersection. Mr. Nitchmann interpreted: "The capacity coming out is not impacted, but there will be a longer delay. " Mr. Cilimberg 6-3-93 3 confirmed the delays are the primary factor in determining capacity. " Mr. Blue felt there was a little more to the issue since the absence of a left turn lane on Rt. 649 would cause delays on that road also. Mr. Cilimberg felt the main issue was the delays on the main thoroughfare (649) and traffic conflicts. The applicant was represented by Earl Burton. He explained that he had received the memo referred to by Mr. Blue. (It had been sent to him rather than his mother. ) He stated that a resident of Deerwood whom he consulted feels that this section of 649 is not dangerous. Accident records show that approximately 1 accident/month occurs on this road. He stated the applicant would not withdraw the request. He reminded the Commission that both the Real Estate and Zoning Departments had informed the applicant the property was zoned R-4 and based on that belief a considerable amount of money has been expended in the development of this plan. He stated the issue of the road had not arisen until after a considerable amount of money had already been spent. In answer to Ms. Andersen 's question, Mr. Fritz explained the steps which had taken place in the processing of the application. Acknowledging that the County cannot require proffers on a rezoning, Mr. Blue asked if, from a practical standpoint, staff makes applicants aware of potential concerns such as these and the fact that "proffers would ease the process along. " Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Yes. Applicants are advised where we see problems that can only be addressed through proffers. " He confirmed that the traffic concerns had been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Bowling confirmed that it is acceptable for a proffer to be added to an application between the time of the Commission and Board hearings. Mr. Blue noted the following options (in the event the Board decides there is a significant safety issue) : (1) The applicant can attempt to buy the property needed and proffer the improvements; or (2) Wait for the VDOT to make the improvements. Mr. Bowling added another option, i. e. the applicant can pay the cost of the condemnation for the County. Mr. Blue noted that the record shows that the applicant was aware that safety was going to be issue and "their reply was 'There is no way we can make a proffer (to build the turn lanes) if we don't own the land. '" 6-3-93 4 Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, explained that the parcel of land in question has frontage on an existing state road. The portion of property which would be involved in the construction of turn lanes is off-site, approximately 1/5 mile away. He stated: "I know the history of this indicates that the applicant formerly owned the land that was off-site from this development. The question in my mind is how far down the road can you require a developer to make highway improvements if he has a tract of land fronting on a state road, with adequate sight distance into the state road. Can you make him do improvements further down the highway? I think that distinguishes this application, with the background and history that this site has. I wouldn't want to lose sight of the fact that this is a tract of land fronting on existing roads, in a subdivision, maintained and accepted by the Commonwealth as a state road. I can't think of any development where a developer has been required to go 1/5 mile down the highway and make highway improvements not adjacent to the parcel of land being proposed. " Mr. Cilimberg: "You can't require anything. This is a legislative act; it is not a subdivision. The issue of requiring is not an issue. If it were a subdivision, that would be a very pertinent consideration. This is simply an act of saying 'Yes ' or 'No' to a rezoning. Unless there is a proffer, that is all you have to act on, is the rezoning request itself. We have had off-site improvements proffered as part of rezoning actions. " Mr. Johnson attempted to clarify to what state road Mr. Roudabush referred. He asked: "The state road to which you referred is the one going through the existing tract, is that not correct?" Mr. Roudabush responded: "It goes to the boundary. " Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Burton if the fact that the applicant had received the most recent staff information "only a couple of days ago" was of any concern to the applicant. Mr. Burton indicated his mother was "upset. " (Mr. Blue again noted that he had been concerned when he learned Ms. Burton had not received the information. However, after staff ' s explanation, he felt the County had followed the proper procedure. ) Mr. Johnson stated he was concerned about the applicants ' feelings on this matter and he would support a deferral if the applicant so desired. Mr. Burton stated he did not feel the most recent report revealed any information which was not already known by the applicant. It was his feeling that VDOT ' s comments were merely "opinion" and were not based on factual information. In response to Mr. Nitchmann' s question, Mr. Burton estimated a 5-6 year buildout period. He also stated that subdivision covenants are currently being developed but have not yet been finalized. 6-3-93 5 In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the "force" of the Airport Overlay District, Mr. Cilimberg explained that those dwellings constructed within the overlay will have to meet certain decibel requirements within the unit. He added that this property is within the Airport Noise Impact Area but is not in the area immediately around the airport where no construction is allowed. Mr. Fritz confirmed that a note is included on the plan, and will be required on the plat, referencing the Airport Noise Impact Area. Mr. Cilimberg added, however: "We don't vouch for anything a potential buyer may or may not know. " There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann stated he had spoken with several residents of Deerwood (6 or 7) and only one had expressed any concerns about the traffic situation. Some residents expressed preference for residential development on the property as opposed to industrial, others expressed a preference for single-family dwellings above townhouses, and one expressed the desire that the property remain as is with no development. He noted that there is ample sight distance in both directions at the entrance. He also noted that the development will probably not be completely built out until the road has been upgraded. He concluded: "Right now, I am swayed to look at this rezoning in a positive manner for those reasons. " He noted he would feel differently if at least half of the persons he had spoken with had expressed concerns about the safety of the road. In response to Ms. Huckle' s question, Mr. Nitchmann stated he had visited the site at 5: 30 in the afternoon. Mr. Blue noted that he had visited the property during the morning rush hour. He stated that though he was in favor of residential as opposed to industrial development of the property, and though he was sympathetic to the applicant' s proposal, he felt the Commission "has to be really sensitive to the public safety" and must rely on expert (VDOT) advice. He noted that the additional information received from VDOT indicates that this proposal will create more safety problems. He expressed concern about turning movements into the subdivision. He agreed that there was adequate sight distance exiting the subdivision. He concluded: "I, personally, cannot vote to approve the rezoning in the face of VDOT saying 'This particular rezoing can result in an unsafe situation. ' It is a tough one because I feel very sympathetic with the applicant with this situation. " Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Blue and felt the Commission must rely on the expertise of the Virginia Department of Transportation. • 6-3-93 6 Mr. Johnson asked if his understanding was correct, i.e. if this request for a rezoning is approved, there would be no opportunity to require modification to the intersection with the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think knowing, going into the rezoning, that it existed and approving the rezoning is essentially saying, when the subdivision comes through, even if there is a real safety problem that you might otherwise identify and turn the subdivision proposal down, you couldn't do it here, reasonably. " Mr. Blue added: "And not even legally. " Mr. Bowling confirmed: "That' s right. " Mr. Johnson asked if there was any "potential similarity" between this request and the approval for the outdoor theater where a condition had been "within the next three years, or something, if there was a change and improvement to that intersection, Rt. 250 and Black Cat Road, then the applicant would be obligated for their share of that and that would be based on relative traffic densities. Is there any potential parallel here where this could be approved with that proviso?" Mr. Bowling responded: "No. This is not a special use permit. " Mr. Cilimberg added: "And not at your initiative either; anything like that has to come from the applicant. " Mr. Johnson asked: "There ' s no way that we can approve a zoning change with a condition?" Mr. Bowling responded: "No, sir. " Mr. Johnson concluded: "Unfortunately, and reluctantly, I think I will accept this comment from VDOT. I don't feel qualified to combat it. " In the event of denial of the request, Mr. Blue asked that the record show that his vote for denial was based purely on "the traffic safety situation at the interchange and if a proffer were forthcoming from the developer that would address that and agree to build those turn lanes, I would be in favor of it. The other factors that other people have brought up are not significant enough to make me vote against it. It is strictly the traffic and if a proffer were to come forth to improve that intersection, I would be making a motion to approve it. " Ms. Huckle agreed that the property was much more suited to residential than industrial, but she, too, felt the safety issue was an overriding factor. Mr. Johnson expressed support for Mr. Blue's comments. He added that could support the requests "if there was an access on either 649 or 606 which was considered safe. " Ms. Huckle noted that though 606 is not as heavily travelled as 649 , it, too, is a very dangerous road. 6-3-93 7 MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA-93-05 for Robert and Victoria Burton be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial due to concerns about the safety of the intersection at Rt. 649 . The motion passed (6: 1) with Commissioner Nitchmann casting the dissenting vote. SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminary Plat - Mr. Fritz asked that the Commission take action to grant staff administrative approval of the subdivision plat, in the event the Board should approve the rezoning. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that staff be granted administrative approval of the Deerwood Preliminary Plat subject to the approval of ZMA-93-05 by the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed unanimously.