HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200000010 Minutes 2001-06-05 Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 5, 2001
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 5, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia Members attending were. Dennis Rooker, Chairman; William Rieley, Vice-Chairman;
Jared Loewenstein, William Finley, Rodney Thomas; and Pete Craddock. Other officials present
were. Michael Barnes, David Benish, Greg Kamptner and Wayne Cilimberg.
A quorum was established and the meeting called to order.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
Mr. Rooker asked for additional matters from the public, there being none, the meeting
proceeded.
Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Minutes -April 17, 2001 and April 24, 2001.
Mr. Rooker asked if any commissioner wished to pull an item for discussion.
Mr Thomas moved for approval of the consent agenda.
Mr Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
SP-2001-008 Elizabeth M. Peyton Bright(Triton PCS-CVR 350E)(Skin#26)- Request for a
special use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless communications facility
with a 114.5-foot tall steel monopole(approximately 10 feet above the height of the tallest
tree within 25 feet), in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows for microwave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers in the Rural Areas. The
property, described as Tax Map 58-Parcel 61A, contains approximately 5.144 acres, and is
located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of Tillman Road (Route 676),
approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection with Route 250 West. The property is zoned
RA, Rural Areas, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3
(Stephen Waller) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JUNE 26, 2001.
Mr. Rooker opened the item for public comment. There being none, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral to June 26, 2001.
Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
a. ZMA 00-10 Avemore(Sign#85 and 86) - Request to rezone 27.46 acres from R-10
Residential to R-15 to allow mixed use of 406 dwelling units, retail uses, and offices The
property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 581 and Tax Map 78 B, Parcels 2A, 2B, 4B, 3-1
and 4-1, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Fontana Drive approximately 1/10
mile from the intersection of Route 20 and Fontana Drive. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as urban density residential, recommended for 6-34 dwelling units
per acre in Neighborhood 3 Pantops Development Area. (Michael Barnes) DEFERRED
FROM THE MAY 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
AND
b. SP 00-69 Avemore(Sign#27, 60) -Request for special use permit to allow professional
offices in a residential development in accordance with Section [18.2.2.11] of the Zoning
Albemarle County Planning Commission—June 5,2001 1
Ordinance A concurrent request exists to rezone 27.46 acres from R-10 Residential to R-15
to allow mixed use of 406 dwelling units, retail uses, and offices (Michael Barnes)
DEFERRED FROM THE MAY 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AND
b. SP 00-70 Avemore(Skin#87,99) - Request for special use permit to allow retail stores and
shops in a residential development in accordance with Section [18.2.2.12] of the Zoning
Ordinance A concurrent request exists to rezone 27 46 acres from R-10 Residential to R-15
to allow mixed use of 406 dwelling units, retail uses, and offices (Michael Barnes)
DEFERRED FROM THE MAY 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Barnes presented the staff report.
Mr. Rooker asked if the undertaking by the Fontana developer expired at build out.
Mr. Barnes replied that he did not have a good answer for that question. The County does not
have assurance that the light will be placed after build out.
Mr. Rooker asked if the requirement of two entrances had to be met by two roads that are in
existence.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that generally speaking that has not been the case
Mr. Rooker asked if you could have a planned connector road that counts as the second road.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes.
Mr. Rooker asked if this particular road had been shown on plats of Dr. Hurt's property.
Mr. Barnes replied not for Dr Hurt's property. The only plat it is shown on is the Fontana
property. There is no guarantee that the road will be placed as shown.
Mr. Finley asked if the actual road was proffered
Mr. Barnes said that the connector road was proffered.
Mr. Finley asked if that would be built under this present application.
Mr. Barnes replied that he would build that road during the first phase.
Mr. Finley asked if that was contingent on right-of-way.
Mr. Barnes replied that he would follow up on that question later
Mr Rieley asked if this were not rezoning and was a by-right development, would the requirement
for two public roads still have to be met
Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct.
Mr. Rieley asked who would make that determination
Mr. Cilimberg said it would be made in the subdivision process that the allowance was being
made for a second means of access. That determination would be made in the planning
department. The struggle we have is those intervening landowners
Mr. Rooker asked if the ordinance requirement of two entrances does not require two entrances
to existing public roads.
2
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it has not been applied in that way
Mr. Finley asked if the commission had approved items like this in the past.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there have been dozens or more.
Mr. Rooker stated that it would be nice to know that there was some undertaking on the part of
the landowner to have the road built.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there have been discussions with Dr Hurt about providing that access
Mr. Barnes said that Fontana and Dr. Hurt coordinated the approach of Olympia Drive. We have
tried to ensure that the connector road gets built.
Mr. Craddock asked if the yellow lines were where roads were anticipated.
Mr. Barnes replied yes.
Mr. Barnes said that if Dr Hurt wants to have subdivision of his property, he will need to have two
connections to public roads as well
Mr Finley asked if that basin would take runoff from Dr Hurt's property
Mr. Barnes said it would.
Mr Finley asked if the developer would still build a regional basin if nothing happened with the
proposed site.
Mr Barnes said that if everything falls through on this chain of events the developer could still
meet all the detention requirements on site The pond shown on the upper left-hand corner is
what the original plan showed.
Mr.Rooker asked if you could eliminate the Fontana Basin without the Regional Basin.
Mr. Barnes replied that question was never really entertained
Mr. Rooker said that in looking at proffer D, it states that the applicant will construct the original
facility during the first phase of construction. He verified that the construction of the regional
basin was not connected to the connector road
Mr. Barnes replied that staff had divorced the two because it was easier to write the actual
agreement. The incentives are for Dr. Hurt to participate in the basin.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that in that proffer, paragraph 5 contains that contingency. If that
possibility occurs will the Fontana Basin be eliminated.
Mr. Barnes replied that part of the agreement is in some respects outside of the County's control,
and would be between the landowner and the homeowner's association. The developer was
unwilling to enter into agreements and exchange money without the rezoning.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the developer could have entered into an agreement contingent upon
the rezoning.
Mr Finley said that in any event he has to know before construction.
3
Mr Barnes discussed how the size of the basin was determined.
Mr. Rieley asked if the original design for the basin would be sufficient to take care of the Fontana
Basin
Mr. Barnes replied that it was not.
Mr. Rooker asked what would stop him from going forward.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that in item E, in the last sentence, it states that the right-of-way has to be
platted before we approve the site plan
Mr. Rieley stated that the developer has to get that with homeowner's approval, which is not likely
to be forthcoming without the removal of the Fontana Basin.
Mr. Finley said that likewise he has to have Dr. Hurt's permission.
Mr. Barnes stated that this requires a lot of different people working together who usually don't.
Mr Rooker asked for the total acreage in open space.
Mr Barnes said it was not delineated per se.
Mr Rooker asked for a description of the terrain of the area between Fontana and Avemore.
Mr. Barnes said it was rising up the hill and is fairly steep Proffer J talks about a 40' undisturbed
line between the two properties and a 70' building setback. They have talked about augmenting
the vegetation that's there. It will not likely be a usable open space.
Mr Rooker said the usable space was the village green and a couple of tot lots.
Mr Barnes stated that there would be three tot lots, the village green, the area around the water
feature, and the clubhouse It seems that green space is around the edge, there is not a large,
centralized greenspace amenity. The conclusion is that one of the major themes of this
development is Avemore Blvd. The option was to break up the design theme or keep it as is.
Mr. Craddock asked about the traffic light, would the developer pay for it after he finishes building
it, is it the same stipulation, does the offer still exist after the fact.
Mr. Cilimberg said yes, as long as the proffers have no sunset on them.
Mr. Barnes said that Fontana was not a rezoning so it could not be made into a proffer at that
time.
Mr. Loewenstein commented regarding the adaptive reuse of the Wilton Farm House. He
believes the County has the records to determine the historical significance of the House.
Mr. Barnes looked through those records and didn't find anything.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing
Mr. Bob Houser spoke, representing StoneHaus developments We began to consider investing
in this property several years ago We like the proximity to downtown and the relation to Darden
Towe Park and the Elks Lodge. We were particularly attracted to the amenities at Darden Towe
Park. This area lacked a unifying vision of what it was to become We began to construct homes
that had an in-town feel along Wilton Farms Road. We chose to rent them due to the uncertain
4
plan for the surrounding area The only viable economic model for this property is multi-family
housing. We visited a number of new urbanite developments to study how they were
implementing multi-family housing. We have met several times with our neighboring property
owners. We have had several meetings with County staff.
Mr Hauser said that this is a community, which accommodates the land and the market. It
enhances the resident's lives through thoughtful planning and quality architecture. The
architecture announces your arrival to our community
Mr Hauser spoke about emergency access. We have proffered that we will acquire that right-of-
way, not that we will try We have statistics on the open space.
Mr Rooker replied that he would like to view the statistics and asked for the dimension of the
village green.
Mr. Houser replied that it was 100' x 200'. Total open space was originally 13.5 acres, or 50% of
the site, it has gone up a little bit. We view this development as part of the Darden Towe
community.
Mr. Rooker asked the location of the tot lots.
Mr. Houser pointed them out. He stated that they are also providing an outdoor pool and a 5-
7,000' community center
Mr Rooker asked if the regional stormwater facility was built would the water feature still be built.
Mr Houser replied that they planned it as an active water feature in both cases
Mr. Rooker verified that they plan to have it as a lake anyway.
Mr. Houser replied that they did.
Mr. Rieley asked how the quantity of parking related to the County requirements and what is
thought necessary to serve the buildings
Mr. Houser replied that the total comes close to two spaces per unit.
Mr. Rieley asked if this is more than is required by the County.
Mr. Houser said yes. Management companies have encouraged him to consider two spaces per
unit.
Mr. Rooker asked how many garages there were.
Mr. Houser replied that there were 54.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that they may have to go into some kind of cooperative parking
arrangement for the commercial area.
Mr. Houser said they have some concerns with the grade coming down through the property.
Mr. Finley asked if there were actually sewers in the clearance area.
Mr. Houser replied that there were.
Mr. Thomas asked about the plans for the stoplight.
5
Mr Houser said that was the first and foremost issue on the minds of Fontana residents The
Fontana developer has proffered the light under certain conditions. Our traffic study suggested
that Avemore would be creating 50% of the need at that intersection We proffered 50% of the
cost of the light based on that assessment. If Fontana will not pay for it, he will provide half the
cost If Fontana will pay for it, he will still provide the money for further upgrades.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were sidewalks within the development
Mr Houser said there were.
Mr Rooker asked if there were sidewalks over to the commercial area.
Mr Houser stated that we have proffered to take the sidewalks out to Route 20, but there are
complications with the various rights-of-way.
Mr. Tony Gardener, representative of the Fontana Owners Association, spoke. The land is
planned for considerable density, the project seems reasonable in those terms and configuration.
We like the mixed-use piece. It is not strictly new urbanism, but it is coming along. The primary
issue is the traffic light. We are worried about the roadway connector, and screening with the
neighbors who abut the property. We are anxious to have the light put in, we hope that the
County will assiduously pursue VDOT We like the proffer of the traffic light. As far as the
connector to Olympia Drive is concerned, we are anxious to have the pond fixed up or eliminated.
Our arrangement with Bob Houser is that we will have the roadway landscaped and the detention
pond eliminated There are several houses where this is a real open area and a large slope, he
hopes that Mr. Houser keeps his promise to provide screening We will meet further to discuss
that We are working well together and expect that our issues will be sealed by the time of the
site plan.
Mr. Finley asked if the houses on the cul-de-sac are in the association
Mr. Gardener replied that they are. One owner was concerned about the connector when he
thought it would connect into the existing Olympia Drive The revised plans show the connector
coming in at the extension of Olympia They are less concerned about that plan.
Mr. Richard Watch, who lives in Fontana, said that although Mr. Houser has proposed a 40'
buffer and a 70' no build zone. That still leaves the buildings 70'from my house. He is
concerned that they will not get enough plantings and screening in the area He does not know
what the definition of adequate is. He feels it should be on a case-by-case basis. Screening is a
concern for the people on Fontana Drive. Traffic is currently a problem and will get worse. There
has been talk of 20 or so townhouses being built near the Montessori school. There is a heavy
volume of traffic, particularly during the morning rush hour He feels strongly that a light is
needed, plus a second access.
There being no further comment, Mr. Rooker closed the public hearing.
Mr Rieley asked Mr. Barnes to explain what studies have been done regarding the need for the
traffic light.
Mr. Barnes replied that warrants are done over 4 or 8 hours. It measures a certain amount of
volume moving through an intersection. The intersection does not have the adequate amount of
volume, we are 25% short.
Mr. Rieley asked what that was in vehicle trips per day.
6
Mr. Barnes replied that he did not know. The construction traffic moving through there now has to
be discounted according to VDOT
Mr. Rieley asked at what percentage of build out is Fontana.
Mr. Barnes replied that phases 1 and 2 have been completed. He estimates they are at 45-50%
of build out.
Mr. Gardener said it was 25%.
Mr. Barnes said that the light is not tied to the amount of development going on in Fontana
Mr. Rieley said that when it meets that criteria, you would have leverage.
Mr. Benish replied that the Fontana subdivision was done by right, but we also may have
leverage at the time of phase 5.
Mr. Rieley asked what it cost to build a foot of sidewalk these days.
Mr. Benish replied not less that$25 per foot.
Mr. Rooker asked staff if they agreed about the 13 5 acres of open space
Mr. Barnes replied that he thinks they have 13 5 acres of pervious coverage. The ordinance is
not very clear in what defines open space He believes they are including the spaces between
the sidewalks and the building.
Mr Rooker asked if it was accurate to say that half the site is impervious surface.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that it is not necessarily usable space
Mr. Rooker asked for the percentage of usable open space.
Mr. Barnes replied that he does not know
Mr. Thomas asked if the buildings running along Fontana are apartments.
Mr. Barnes said they were called garrets. Their idea is to use these as opposed to retaining
walls. They consist of garages built into the slopes with small one-bedroom apartments on top.
Mr. Thomas asked what the code was for a buffer between that section and the residential
section.
Mr Benish replied that no buffer is required as it is residential against residential.
Mr. Thomas asked about the buffer that was proffered.
Mr. Barnes said that the setback would be 25', as far as the buffering requirement, there is none
Mr. Benish said that there is a requirement of a screening buffer if it is a by-right development
Mr Rooker asked if there was a proffer that covered the screening, or will that be taken care of in
the final agreement.
Mr. Barnes replied that is one thing that got overlooked, it is not actually addressed He has
spoken with the developer about that.
7
Mr. Rooker asked what the developer had to say on that issue.
Mr Barnes replied that we left it wide open.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out Mr. Gardener's letter, on page 6, it appears that the developer is
negotiating with the owner's association regarding the buffer plantings
Mr. Rooker said that was being left to the two parties at this point.
Mr Barnes replied yes.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is nothing in the proffers covering that.
Mr. Craddock asked how many children would come out of here, or is it mostly adults.
Mr. Benish stated that the character of the development tends to be on the low side of the
number of children
Mr. Craddock remembered that last year there was some confusion about some children going to
Stone-Robinson or Stony Point.
Mr. Benish said the thought Wilton Farms was in the Cale district currently
Mr Craddock stated that some of them go to Stone-Robinson
Mr. Benish said that they are one of the higher generators for apartment complexes.
Mr. Rooker asked the developer to address the planting of the screening between the
subdivisions and the potential for including it in the proffers
Mr. Houser replied that he had it in the proffer originally. It was removed because of the concern
of it being administered by zoning He will budget appropriate screening and put it in the proffers.
Some people will have a bunch of space that is all wood He does not want to be required to put
a bunch of little pine trees in front of a forest He has offered to budget a certain amount, they
can put it anywhere or use it for anything they choose He would give the money to the neighbors
for them to do with as they wish. The only thing keeping us from putting the agreement together
is time.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is not an ordinance requirement for screening.
Mr. Houser said there is some language within the subdivision ordinance.
Mr Finley pointed out that a landscaping plan has to be approved.
Mr. Barnes stated that there are requirements for screening. We did have a proffer originally for
screening between Fontana and Avemore. It was thought that this is not something the County is
really asking for, nor can it require It is something that the homeowner's association wants.
Mr Thomas asked Mr. Houser what was in the 40' buffer area that was already proffered.
Mr Houser replied in most cases it's woods. This area on the Fontana side is actually a little bit
open. His two proffers are that he will not disturb at all within 40' and it will be 70' before the first
building.
Mr Thomas asked if the remainder of the land past the first house was wooded.
8
Mr. Barnes replied that it does have trees on it, but he cannot attest to the density of the trees.
Mr. Finley asked which department would handle the landscape plan.
Mr. Benish said that would be included in the site plan review process through the planning
commission. Zoning is involved in the review as a part of the review process.
Mr Thomas said that by code he was not required to add any screening, though he has proffered
to do so.
Mr Rieley said it is difficult to establish the baseline without a requirement.
Mr Benish stated that there are landscaping requirements as part of the parking, but not for the
buffer strip.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Gardener to speak to the screening issue and the possibilities for an
agreement.
Mr. Gardener said that Mr. Houser had written back that he agreed in concept to paragraph#6 in
my letter. He thinks that we intend to have it down in a written agreement He mentioned that we
own a piece of property that is essential for his development. He assumes that among those
agreements, we will find a satisfactory way of dealing with that. But he would welcome and
encourage a proffer.
Mr. Rooker said it might get difficult for the County to be involved in that approach as the
screening is subjective.
Mr. Gardener said he was pretty confident that the vast majority would be satisfied
Mr Finley said he was ready to support this item.
Mr. Rieley said he had some lingering concerns, but thinks that this development is well-ordered
and appropriate. He is presuming that the proffered plans include all of the sketches.
Mr Barnes encouraged the commissioners to look at the last sheet, which is the proffered plan
and shows sidewalks and the development. They are proffering the form and character of the
architecture.
Mr. Rieley wanted to make sure that the proffer included the display.
Mr. Barnes replied that it does not include that one
Mr Houser replied that it is an artist's rendering and he does not know how that was constructed
Mr. Barnes pointed out page 30, which shows the village green, that drawing was translated into
words
Mr Rieley would like to have the sketches included as a benchmark, but understands Mr.
Houser's point. He would like to say how pleased he is to have a rezoning that increases the
density without upsetting the neighbors His lingering concerns are that he wishes there were
more usable open space, he would like to see more of the village green type There are some
really nice transitions, but it still is a pretty major shift in scale from this to the Fontana side,
making the plantings very important He will defer to the homeowners association and their
negotiations.
9
Mr Rooker agreed with Mr Rieley Other than somewhat of a lack of open space, this is a very
good plan The developer's point about being directly located across from Darden Towe Park is
an important comment The residents will have access to Darden Towe Park much like residents
at River Run have access to Pen Park.
Mr Loewenstein pointed out that residents don't have to cross a major highway at River Run.
Signalization is going to be critical to ease pedestrian access. He agrees with Mr. Rieley and Mr.
Rooker.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of ZMA 00-10 with proffers as proposed.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Finley moved for approval of SP 00-69 with condition.
1. The professional office uses shall be limited, in combination with the retail stores and shops
uses allowed in SP 00-70, to not exceed 20,000 square feet
Mr Rieley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously
Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of SP 00-70 with conditions.
1 For the purposes of this Special Use Permit, Retail stores and shops shall be defined as the
commercial uses listed below:
a. The following retail sales and service establishments
1 Antique, gift,jewelry, notion and craft shops.
2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
3 Department store.
4 Drug store, pharmacy.
5 Florist
6. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk
dispensary and wine and cheese shops.
7 Furniture and home appliances (sales and service).
8. Hardware store
9. Musical instruments
10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops.
11. Optical goods.
12. Photographic goods.
13. Visual and audio appliances.
14. Sporting goods.
15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
b The following services and public establishments:
1. Barber, beauty shops.
2. Churches, cemeteries
3. Funeral homes.
4. Health spas.
5. Indoor theaters.
6. Laundries, dry cleaners
7. Libraries, museums.
8. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
9. Eating establishments.
10. Tailor, seamstress.
11. Medical center.
10
12. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
13. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95)
Mr Craddock seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of the waivers providing for angled parking, curvilinear parking,
and one-way circulation.
Mr Finley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of the waiver providing for a public road
Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
a. ZMA-200-001 Redfields Phase 4(Gaylon Beights) (Sign #54, 55)—Request to rezone 9.4
acres from Residential R-1 to Planned Residential District (PRD)to allow for 14 additional
homes. The applicant has also requested a rezoning of part of Redfields Open Space to
Planned Residential District (PRD) to allow for 10 large lots and a water tower. The property,
described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 22B, 22D and Tax Map 76R1 Parcel 1, is located in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Redfields Road [Route# 1270] approximately 1 mile
from the intersection of Redfields Road and Sunset Avenue Extended. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in Neighborhood 5. (Michael Barnes)
Mr. Barnes presented the staff report
Mr. Loewenstein asked the total acreage of the additional 10 large lots
Mr. Barnes answered 4-5 acres.
Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Barnes had done an analysis of how much of the open space is in critical
slope.
Mr. Barnes replied that staff has not done that analysis
Mr. Rooker asked if there was an open space requirement on a per phase basis.
Mr Barnes summed up the open space per phase.
Mr. Rooker in terms of total, was the proffer for total open space throughout Redfields, or was
there a per phase requirement.
Mr. Barnes replied that it seemed to be a total requirement on a percentage basis
Mr. Rieley asked if the numbers provided were throughout all of Redfields
Mr. Barnes replied if you sum up the total open space, that is the total.
Mr. Rooker verified that the numbers represented the total open space in Redfields, throughout
the subdivision. He asked if there was a proffer made that it would be 30% open space.
Mr. Barnes said that was a determination made by zoning in the original application.
Mr. Rooker asked if the proffer was made for 30% total open space.
Mr. Kamptner answered that he did not know if it requires 30% in each phase.
II