Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199400015 Minutes 1994-12-06 ' , 12-6-94 1 DECEMBER 6, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday. December 6. 1994, Room 7 County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Lilly, Senior Plat/tier, Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Dotson and Vaughan. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of November 22, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. ZMA 94-15 Philip A. Sansone - Propqsal to rezone 7.87 acres from R-1 (1 dwelling unit per acre) to R-10 (th dwelling units per acre), with proffer. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 5&1, is located off of State Route 20 and Garnett Center Drive, immediately north of Wilton Country Homes, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is recommended for low density residential (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Deferred from the November 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lilly presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer. Staff also recommended approval of private roads for the subdivision. Referring to the fact that the cul-de-sac has two access gpints, Ms. Huckle recalled a previous determination that "a cul-de-sac is not a cul-de-sac if it has two exits." Mr. Lilly explained that an a,llowange is being made so that one of the "exits" can be continued as. a street in the event of future development on the adjoining property (presently occupied by the Garnett Day Treatment Center). There are no plans to continue the street at this time. Mr. Lilly explained that in order to approve this as a proffered plan, the Commission must first approve the request for private roads. He explained that the proposal does meet one of the Ordinance provisions for private roads in that it only serves non single-family, detached units and it is not a through street. Anticipating the possibility of increased traffice Ms Hackle asked if the private roads would have to he upgraded at the time the Garnett property is develnpeil_ Mr 1 illy explained that the 50 feet right-of-way P IliCh iS propose-1 could y et the :;.^n;re ne,^,tS for 3 public ro,a'd. He stated that there has been no traffic analysis done in terms of what traffic might be generated. Mi. Lilly confirmed that the piivate wads would be maintained through a titivate hoineowners' maintenance agreement. Ms. Huckie asked if the maintenance agreement would be written so as to insure that additional users (generated by the development of the adjoining 12-6-94 2 property) would share in the costs of the maintenance. [This question was answered later in the meeting.] Mr. Lilly noted that some of the wording in the proffer ("...contingent upon approval of the subdivision plat") was somewhat unclear as to the applicant's intent. [This issue was addressed later in the meeting.] Ms. Huckle asked if the proposed 30 feet of pavement was sufficient to permit parking. Mr. Lilly responded affirmatively. He also confirmed that the pavement width would be noted on the plat. Referring to Ms. Huckle's question about increased usage of the road when the adjoining property develops, Mr. Blue asked if staff was confident that maintenance of the road would not be a problem. Mr. Lilly explained that any development on the adjoining property would require either a rezoning or an amendment to the proffers on the zoning for this property. Any upgrade which might be needed could be addressed at that time. Mr. Lilly confirmed that the adjoining property (Garnett property) is in the growth area. Mr. Nitchmann asked who would be required to pay for the cost of upgrading the road to state standards, if that should become necessary at some future time. Mr. Lilly explained it would be up to the developer of the property being developed at that time to pay for whatever upgrades may be necessary to serve that parcel. Mr. Nitchmann wanted to be certain that the owners of the lots currently under consideration would not have to pay for upgrading a road to serve adjoining properly Mr Cilimberg explained- "No, that would not normally occur unless there was some obligation carried with each of those lots as they are sold that they would have to participate in an upgrade." Mr. Lilly explained that the present proffer on the Garnett Day Treatment Center property limits its usage to that use only. Ms. Imhoff noted that no sidewalks are shown on the plan. She asked if there is any County policy for providing any type of pathways. She pointed out that there will probably be pedestrian traffic from this development to the park across Rt. 20. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is no county policy to require pathways, though some developers have provided them at their own initiative. Ms. Imhoff felt the County was "missing an opportunity, not having a policy in place when these type of projects come along and the developer is missing an opportunity to provide an amenity for these particular lots by not having some type of sidewalk or pathway system." Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Don Franco, representing the County Engineering office, to comment on the slope of the driveways. Mr. Franco explained the maximum uphill grade will be 12% and downhill will be 8%. The parking pad will have a maximum grade of 5%. Ms. Imhoff felt that 12% was steep. Mr. Franco stated that the County presently has no standard, though there have been discussions about establishing a standard. For purposes of comparison, Mr. 12-6-94 3 Franco reported that some of the driveways in the Mill Creek development have driveway grades of as much as 30%. The applicant was represented by Tom Crystal. He offered to answer Commission questions. Ms. Huckle asked him the same questions she had posed to staff earlier in regards to the future maintenance of the roads in the event of increased traffic caused by development of adjoining properties. Mr. Crystal explained that whoever develops the adjoining property, (whether this applicant or someone else) will be required to make whatever improvements might be required to serve that particular development. It was his understanding that owners in future developments would join in any road maintenance agreement with persons who already live on the road. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis to address this question. Mr. Davis responded: "It is a requirement of plat approval as well. There has to be a road maintenance agreement in effect for plat approval." Ms. Huckle asked if that agreement would extend to the adjacent properties, when they are developed. Mr. Davis responded: "No, not necessarily. That would negotiated at the time those future plats are developed—by whomever owns the private road." Mr. Davis did not know if this road would be owned by the individual lot owners or if it would be held by an association. Mr. Crystal said it was his understanding there would be a homeowners' association and the developer is a part of that association until the last lot is sold. Mr. Davis confirmed that, as County attorney, he would review the maintenance agreement. That agreement must acknowledge that the county will not have any maintenance responsibility for the future. He stated that the county's review of the agreement does not "look at the equity of who pays for the maintenance." It just ensures that there is a maintenance agreement." He explained: "But if that future property is ever incorporated, they will have to reach an agreement with this property association, or the property owners, if they maintain ownership of the private road. So the adjoining property will not be able to force them to do anything without there being an agreement. At the time that that private road is extended to serve the adjacent property, the adjacent properties will have to be a party to the maintenance agreement at that time. So I don't think that the property owners will be prejudiced in any way unless the original agreement is set up in a way that could leave them vulnerable and I doubt that they would want to do that." Mr. Jenkins asked how many acres of land would be able to use this road as right-of-way. Mr. Crystal confirmed that the only other property is the Garnett Treatment Center property which is a total of 15 acres and this property is also owned by the applicant. Dr. Hurt owns the balance of the property and has other means of access. Mr. Jenkins asked staff if the road will be built to state standards. Mr. Lilly responded negatively but explained that the 50-foot right-of-way will allow it to be upgraded to state standards if that is ever necessary. 12-6-94 4 Mr. Crystal stated the average selling price of the homes will be slightly below $90,000. Marilyn Gale, the applicant's engineer, offered to answer questions. At this point, Mr. Davis pointed out the "ambiguity" in the proffer which Mr. Lilly had noted in his staff report earlier. Mr. Davis explained that the applicant and the staff interpret the proffer differently, i.e. "The applicant has proffered to follow this plan, subject to it being approved; however, if it is not approved, it is their interpretation of the proffer that they could then develop any other plan that they could get approved and not this particular plan." Mr. Davis stated that if the Commission feels this plan is of particular significance, "then the proffer needs to be amended in some fashion, that the developer is comfortable with, to say that a plan, in general accord with this preliminary plat, would be developed, and acknowledge that there is no requirement, based on this proffer, that the county approve any plan that doesn't meet the subdivision or zoning ordinance requirements. As it is now, if for some reason the developer withdrew this plan and it wasn't approved, they are not bound by this particular sketch plan." Mr. Davis explained that the Commission can still act on the request as long as there is a general understanding "as to what you are dealing with," but prior to the Board's meeting the proffer would have to be submitted in writing in order for the Board to act. Though Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis if he could suggest some wording, Mr. Davis declined, saying that the developer needs to submit language that would meet the Commission's expectation which is "that a plan very similar to this one would be the only plan that is developed if it is rezoned." Mr. Crystal commented: "We really agree on where we are going; it is just a matter of getting the words properly in the document and we would like to go forward and then work on some language that will make it acceptable by the time it gets to the Board." Mr. Davis felt there was no disagreement as to the intent of the proffer, but the wording was ambiguous. Mr. Blue asked if staff felt the private road would still be acceptable if the adjoining property (the Garnett Center) develops at high density at some future time. Mr. Lilly stated staff had attempted to provide for that possibility by insuring that a road could be constructed in the right-of-way which would meet state standards. Mr. Franco confirmed that there is ample right-of-way to make a state road possible. Mr. Franco also noted that the request for mountainous terrain standards is for the upper cul-de-sac, with rolling standards for the lower part of the road. He felt it would only be a matter of a difference of pavement width. Mr. Franco also stated that it can be assured that the future extension of the road will be able to take place without additional grading. He confirmed this will be done before final plat approval is granted. Public comment was invited. 12-6-94 5 Mr. Dave Emmett, a resident of Franklin, addressed the Commission. He expressed concerns about increased traffic, lighting, and buffering. He asked for a show of hands of those present who had concerns about the proposal. Three hands were raised in response to his request. He asked for a review of the proffers on the original rezoning. He expressed concern about pedestrian movement across Rt. 20 to the county park. (Mr. Blue explained that his concerns would be addressed at the time of site plan approval. Mr. Cilimberg briefly described the history of the property, but explained that the original proffers do not apply to this parcel of land.) Ms. Huckle asked if staff was aware of any plans for a traffic light at the Park entrance on Rt. 20. Mr. Lilly explained that the placement of a light would be determined by the point at which traffic count meets VDOT's warrants for a light. He did not think this development would cause the need for a light, though the development of Dr. Hurt's property may. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Blue noted that though the increased density for this parcel is considerable, the net density is actually lower when combined with the parcel to the south. He stated that though the people living there probably prefer the lower density, the Comprehensive Plan is trying to increase density in the growth areas, of which this property is a part. He felt the question was whether to follow the guidelines of the Comp Plan and allow this rezoning, or, deviate from the Plan and deny the request. He said his questions about the future development of the Garnett Center property had been answered satisfactorily by staff. He hoped that staff will ensure, at the time of final approval, that if any offsite grading is necessary for the development of the Garnett property, the easements will be planned for now. Ms. Imhoff stated that though she supports the rezoning, in concept, she felt it was unfortunate that the development did not offer any pathways, nor provide more detailed information about buffering and night lighting. She hoped the Board would have the opportunity to review some additional information. She also stated she is never comfortable with a proffer that has not been agreed to by the applicant and the County's legal staff. She stated she would support the request, with the reservations above noted. Mr. Jenkins asked if this proposal complies with the Area III Study. Mr. Blue felt that it does comply, though sidewalks were recommended all along Rt. 20, but not necessarily in this particular development. Mr. Blue asked if staff felt some of the issues raised by the Commission "could be addressed with favorable results" before the time of site plan review. Mr. Lilly explained that this type of development would not have to have a site plan. Staff confirmed two actions were requested of the Commission: (1) To allow private roads under Section 18-36(b)(4): and (2) To approve the rezoning, subject to the acceptance of the 12-6-94 6 applicant's proffer, with the understanding that it will be clarified to meet the intent of the applicant and the Commission prior to Board hearing. Mr. Blue asked if staff would be move comfortable with a deferral. Given the applicant's confirmation that they are willing to amend the proffer as discussed, Mr. Cilimberg did not think there would be any problem with the Commission taking action. However, it is up to the Commission to decide whether some of the other issues raised need to be addressed prior to Commission action. Ms. Huckle stated she would not be opposed to a deferral if it would result in a "cleaner proposal." She also wondered if there should be some statement included in the action related to protection of the purchasers in relation to the road maintenance. Mr. Davis responded: "I don't think so, unless you want something other than the ordinary, it's not necessary. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the request for private roads for ZMA 94-15 be approved in accordance with Section 18-36-4. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA 94-15 for Philip A. Sansone be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with the understanding that the development will be based upon a subdivision plat similar to the one presented to the Commission on December 6, 1994 and that the proffer will be amended accordingly. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Mr. Jenkins again expressed a concern about the safety issue of pedestrian traffic across Rt. 20 to reach Darden Towe Park. He hoped something could be done about this concern. The motion for approval passed unanimously.