Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200700026 Legacy Document 2007-11-08 (2)Albemarle County Planning Commission August 28, 2007 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session, meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Bill Edgerton; Jon Cannon and Pete Craddock. Absent was Eric Strucko. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Harrison Rue, Thomas Jefferson Planning District; John Giometti, VDOT representative; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Kamptner arrived at 5:20 p.m. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and established a quorum. Work Session: Places29 Draft Master Plan (Judy Wiegand): Chapter 5. Future Land Use and Transportation Framework Chapter 6. Community Facilities and Services - The Commission continued its work session held on July 31, 2007, responding to the staff questions and giving guidance to the staff. - At the last meeting the Commission did not quite get through the land use section or the Green Infrastructure Map. Staff wants to make sure to get through the Transportation section in advance of the Board of Supervisors discussion next week on September 5 to make sure that all of the important information from the Commission goes forward to them at that time. Therefore, the transportation section was discussed first. In summary, the Planning Commission continued its July 31, 2007 work session in their review of Chapters 5 and 6 of the Places29 Draft Master Plan. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed Chapters 5, beginning with the Transportation section on page 41. The Commission reviewed and discussed Chapter 5 of the Draft Places29 Master Plan, answered the questions posed by staff, and made comments and suggestions. Public comment was not taken. No formal action was taken. The Planning Commission needs to go back and finish up the land use section. Due to the lateness the Commission decided to stop. They acknowledged that this goes before the Board of Supervisors on September 5 and they would not get the Commission's comments on some of these items. It was assumed that this would come back for further comment about the other information such as the green infrastructure and land use. Staff will schedule a date in the future to bring back the redrafted version after the Board of Supervisors work session on September 5. The Planning Commission made the following comments on Chapter 5 and 6: Concerns were expressed about Guiding Principle 8 that ties infrastructure to development. The Commission's desire is to strengthen that Guiding Principle to the extent legally possible to tie rezoning decisions together with infrastructure availability and need. The Master Plan should refer to that principle in important places throughout the document. For example, in the introduction to the Transportation Section, that principle should get prominently mentioned. The question was raised regarding whether the Master Plan locked the County into specifics regarding the Transit System. Staff responded that the plan was conceptual and that the details will be clarified later, so flexibility is possible with regard to transit stops and some of those types of items. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 FINAL ACTION MEMO On Page 5-66, where it talks about the percentage of transit riders, there was a concern about that number being low. An explanation was given that there was a conservative approach taken to the expected densities with regard to the modeling as is required by VDOT. The Planning Commission talked about the desire to have goals or strategies that would try to increase that transit usage number and asked if there were design solutions throughout that would address this. The Commission was asked if they heard enough in the discussion of pedestrian related elements, the grade separated interchanges and some of the other design solutions to address the transit ridership issue. The Commission expects to hear back from staff about what kinds of things that they could do or look for to increase the transit ridership level. The plan needs to state goals or a threshold to try to achieve. One way to state the goal is to significantly increase transit use above what might be expected in the normal course of business by doing or paying attention to the appropriate design elements, which could be listed. There was a comment on making sure that the transportation system map, which was graphic 5.32, included a clear notation regarding the accommodations for bikes and pedestrians. It would be too confusing to try to show the elements in the map itself, but staff was directed to make sure that there is clear notation on the map that there are pedestrian and bicycle elements and make sure that it is also mentioned in the text. The graphics should be integrated with the text for better clarity, including in that section. With respect to the specific 8 issues that staff walked the Commission through, on the 2 grade separated interchanges the Planning Commission endorsed comments that people felt that this was the right approach and that it was really important to community members at large in responding to increased traffic and that those interchanges should be included as part of the system. Issue #6 related to the jug handle. The Planning Commission directed that the jug handle be moved to the other available location where it did not conflict with the trailer park and leave the explanation in the text as it already is. Issue #8, regarding the optional connector road in the Hydraulic Road area, the Commission asked to add language to make sure that the existing residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected to the extent possible. There was some concern about the specific locations of at grade pedestrian crossings and pedestrian overpasses. Planning Commissioners asked if these could be rearranged if necessary depending on whether the situation required it. The response was yes, that was possible. A map would be included that showed the specific locations of those pedestrian crossings. On page 65, the graphic need to be redone to make it clearer. There was a request to staff to take another look at the language about the Eastern Connector to see if it was appropriate and accurate. There was a general comment about increasing font sizes wherever possible. The Planning Commission took a dinner break at 5:41 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:05 p.m. The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session, meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 2 FINAL ACTION MEMO Members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Bill Edgerton; Jon Cannon, Eric Strucko and Pete Craddock. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent. Other officials present were Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Allan Schuck, Senior Engineer; Amelia McCulley, Director of Current Development & Zoning; John Shepherd, Chief of Current Development; and Elaine Echols, Principal Planner. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said that in the discussion this afternoon with regard to Places29 they were talking about further alternatives and context sensitive designs. They were thinking about a lot of different elements that are of critical importance in designing roadways and transportation networks. There was no discussion where cost was a factor. The costs of these roadways are going to be paid by the taxpayers one way or another. They will be paid in higher housing costs if it is proffers. It will be paid in higher taxes being local or state. The cost benefit analysis that is necessary for these designs he has not seen vetted. He was hoping that it will be a future chapter in this Places29 strategy. He requested that be a part of their thinking and that those designs they have chosen not to pursue and the preferred alternative have some rough costing associated with them so that the community can see that costs are a part of the Commission's thinking. As they all know there is not an unlimited budget. There being no further comments, the meeting moved on to the next item. Regular Items: SUB -2007-00240 Michael Weber Proposal for a waiver to subdivision ordinance section 14-404, "Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway". The request is for a waiver to allow each lot in a proposed two lot subdivision to gain access from separate public streets. Proposed Lot 1 would access off of Dry Bridge Road [Route 708], and proposed Lot 2 would access off of Dick Woods Road [Route 637]. The property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 31A, contains 6.161 acres zoned RA (Rural Areas). This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District off Dick Woods Road [Route 637] approximately .67 miles [3575 feet] away from the intersection of Dick Woods Road [Route 637] and Ragged Mountain Road [Route 681]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area #3. (Megan Yaniglos) Motion: Mr. Strucko moved made a motion for approval of SUB -2007-00240, Michael Weber, with staff's recommended condition amended as follows: 1. The subdivision plat shall be in general accord with the exhibit (Attachment B) with respect to proposed driveway locations and the limitation that the parcel be subdivided into no more than two lots. 2. That there will be no disturbance to the low lying area outlined on Attachment B as well. Mr. Craddock asked what happens to the third development right. Mr. Kamptner replied that they could consider that a dormant development right. If the land were to be resubdivided it could be carved into three 2 -acre parcels. It could be revived. Once the ownership is no longer common among the 2 parcels there it becomes less likely. But, it is always there to be used at some point or never depending on the owner. Mr. Edgerton said that it has to be assigned to one of the lots. If land was added to that lot later from an adjoining parcel then could it be used? ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 3 FINAL ACTION MEMO Mr. Kamptner said that he did not think so. He asked staff if they would require that the applicant assign a dormant development right. It can't be used. He did not know what staff required to be depicted on the plat. Mr. Shepherd replied that they would not require the assignment of a development right to a parcel that contained less than the amount of acreage required to support the proposal. It is extinguished, but it is not eliminated. It could be used in the future. However, in this particular case the approval of the waiver is subject to the development of the property in accord with this plan. So if the owners in the future wanted to reconfigure it using 3 development rights they lose the benefit of the waiver. Mr. Cannon asked if the waiver would go away even though the driveway had already been built. Mr. Shepherd replied yes, because it was built on the condition of the waiver. It would be a record of this in the subdivision file and they would address that. Mr. Zobrist asked why there could not be a deeded proffer of the development right back to the County. Mr. Kamptner replied not in this case because it is a by right development. Mr. Craddock said that the concern was if these 2 lots were sold to the same person and then they came back to us and asked for that third lot, whether it is next year or ten years. Ms. Yaniglos noted that the waiver would be void. If they reconfigured the lots from this waiver they would have to close that driveway that was approved. Mr. Kamptner said that nothing compels that the land will always be used for that purpose with that waiver. The applicant could tomorrow decide not to develop it that way and not use the waiver. He could propose a 3 lot subdivision and had the right to do that. Mr. Zobrist asked if this request is premature. Should the applicant be here at the point in time when it is ready to be developed? Then they can tell us what they want to do with it if that is the case. Mr. Edgerton noted that typically staff handles the subdivision administratively. If there is concern of it not happening then they could add the requirement to see the final site plan. Mr. Kamptner noted that it was the final subdivision plat. Ms. Joseph noted that this was something that they had talked about before about the distinguishing of development rights. They found that it is nearly impossible to do away with them in circumstances like this. Even when they have done some of the rural developments where they have had a parcel they have designated that 3 development rights go on the preservation tract. Mr. Shepherd said that if this waiver is granted with this condition then the parcel is encumbered with that condition. In the event that an owner in the future came back with a different configuration to make 3 lots they would have to come back to the Commission to overcome the condition. Also, to do 3 lots would require a private road meeting private road standards, which then would overcome the objection that is here. There is a safety net provided in the ordinance. Ms. Joseph said that the other safety net is there any way that they can ever extinguish development rights. Is that something that has to come from some where other than the power that the Commission has or is it something that they could place within an ordinance? Mr. Kamptner replied that they do it by rezoning land, purchasing development rights or where owners donate them through conservation easements. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 4 FINAL ACTION MEMO Ms. Joseph said that as far as it being a condition of approval for something if somebody is asking for a waiver request that is not something that the Commission can do. Mr. Kamptner replied no, because the waiver is not permanent. The applicant does not have to take advantage of the waiver. They can come back tomorrow and develop that with a single access. The conditions that attach to the waivers have no application. They apply only if the waiver itself is being exercised. Mr. Cannon said that he was comfortable with a condition that would require the applicant come back to the Commission if he wanted to do something with the property that involved 3 parcels as opposed to 2. He asked if that would be what this condition would do. Mr. Kamptner said that it probably works if they are still operating under the waiver. Everyone has the right to resubdivide their property. Mr. Cannon noted that the applicant could come back with a 3 lot subdivision and conform to the requirement for common access and never see the Commission again. But, that is the applicant's option. Mr. Kamptner replied that was correct. Mr. Morris asked to move the question. Mr. Zobrist asked that the language of the conditions be clarified. Condition 1 says that the plat comply with exhibit B. Mr. Edgerton said that condition 1 would be as staff recommended. Mr. Zobrist said that condition 2 would be that there would be no degradation in the low lying area and that it be appropriately designated and shown on the plat. Condition 3 would be that the applicant shall not further subdivide the land without the approval of the Planning Commission. Ms. McCulley asked that they define degradation. That is going to be difficult to understand and enforce. Mr. Zobrist replied that it would be left undisturbed. Mr. Kamptner said that Mr. Strucko's motion also made a reference to as shown on Attachment b, which would be the referenced point. Amended Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to approve SUB -2007-00240, Michael Weber to include the conditions recommended by staff, as amended. 1. The subdivision plat shall be in general accord with the exhibit (Attachment B) with respect to proposed driveway locations and the limitation that the parcel be subdivided into no more than two lots. 2. There shall be no degradation (or it shall be left undisturbed) in the low lying area and it shall be appropriately designated and shown on the plat. 3. The applicant shall not further subdivide the land without the approval of the Planning Commission. The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Mr. Zobrist voted nay.) Ms. Joseph stated that SUB -2007-00240, Michael Weber was approved with conditions. Work Sessions: ZMA-2006-00022 The Commons at Albrecht Place ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 5 FINAL ACTION MEMO PROPOSAL: Rezone 3.398 acres from PD -SC - Planned Development Shopping Center which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to PD -SC - Planned Development Shopping Center which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to allow up to 32,364 sq. ft of commercial space. PROFFERS: No EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community -scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 400 feet west of the intersection of U.S. Route 29 and Shoppers World Court, directly behind the Shoppers World shopping center TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 61 M, Block 12, Parcel 1 E MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Sean Dougherty) In summary, a work session on The Commons at Albrecht Place was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. In response to a request from Ms. Joseph, Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Planning Commission's comments: - The Commission at this point would not be favorably inclined to grant the waivers for critical slopes or buffer intrusion. There is the need for the required buffer to be established on the south side of the site as well as the west side of the site. - The Commission would like to see consideration of a design that respects the critical slopes and buffers and at the same time compliments Shoppers World. That may mean that it is a 3 -sided kind of project and the service alley is utilized for that purpose with this development as it is being utilized for Shopper's World. The face of the project would then tend to be south, west and north. The plan may need to be minimized. The Planning Commission made the following comments about The Commons at Albrecht Place: 1. The Commission would not support the critical slopes waiver or waiver to disturb the 20 foot buffer. 2. The design needs to respect the edges next to the developed residential areas. 3. The orientation of the buildings may need to change and some sort of redesign to better use the service alley is desired. 4. The applicant should talk to the neighbors about where and how to formalize pedestrian access since there is already a footpath down to the shopping center. ZMA-2004-00022 Treesdale Park PROPOSAL: Rezone 6.60 acres from R4 zoning district which allows residential uses (4 units per acre) to PRD (Planned Residential District) - which allows residential uses (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. This request proposes a total of 90 units at a density of 14 units per acres and no commercial uses. PROFFERS: No EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6 - 34 units per acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: The property is located in the Rio Magisterial District at 640 E. Rio Road, south of Towne Lane on the west side of East Rio Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 61, Parcels 182, 183, and 183A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Sean Dougherty) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 6 FINAL ACTION MEMO In summary, a work session on ZMA-2004-00022 Treesdale Park was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. The Planning Commission made the following comments about Treesdale: 1. Provision of an access easement for the greenway to provide a public access easement for pedestrians connecting the greenway trail dedication acreage to Rio Road. 2. Identification of trees for preservation and a commitment to preserve them 3. Look at the feasibility of removing some of the units on the upper floors near the houses next door. 4. Make a commitment to certain architectural elements/features such as materials, massing, and scale 5. Make provision for transit 6. Tie the development to a "built" Meadowcreek Parkway, not a "plan" for the Meadowcreek Parkway 7. Have proffers that guarantee that the project will be an affordable housing project, even if the tax credits aren't achieved. 8. Make sure that dynamite/blasting concerns of neighbors are addressed. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:51 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:02 p.m. ZMA-2007-00007 Mermac Crossing PROPOSAL: Rezone 3.198 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses and 1 unit per acre to Planned Residential (PRD) zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial and industrial uses for a total of 26 units. PROFFERS: No EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in the Hollymead Community. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 3226 Proffit Rd, Earlysville, VA 22911, property is on the south side of Proffit Rd, approximately 1,000 feet east of US 29 in the Hollymead Community. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32-35 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Judy Wiegand) In summary, a work session on ZMA-2007-00007 Mermac Crossing was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. The Planning Commission made the following comments about Mermac Crossing: 1. This is the time to facilitate the design of an interconnected street network and the applicant should take the lead with the adjoining owner to help set it up. 2. Some PC members said that density should be increased, others said that the proposed density was sufficient. 3. A greater setback from Proffitt Road is essential in order to accommodate the widening of Proffitt Road and to keep the buildings from sitting right up against the street. There must be a positive relationship of the buildings to Proffitt Road. Commissioners stressed that the applicant must meet regulatory requirements, such as parking and setbacks. 4. Some PC members said that the unit types shown were appropriate; others said that a different unit type was needed to fulfill density expectations of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission stressed that our Development Areas are precious resources. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 7 FINAL ACTION MEMO 5. The applicant should expect to make cash proffers in accordance with the Board's policy direction for all non -affordable units. SP -2007-00026 Crozet Station PROPOSED: 30 residential units to be located above the existing Crozet Shopping Center buildings and a parking structure addition to the northeast corner of the site. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: 18.22.2.2.6 uses permitted the R15 Zoning District (15 units/acre) and 18.22.2.2.9 Parking Structure COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community of Crozet; designated CT 6 Urban Core, which allows for a mix of commercial, office, retail, and other uses along with residential uses up to 18 units an acre and up to 36 units an acre in a mixed used setting, according to the Crozet Master Plan. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: Crozet Shopping Center, north of Three Notch'd Road(Route 240); approx. '/ mile east of its intersection with Rt. 810 TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-29 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall (Claudette Grant) In summary, a work session on SP -2007-00026 Crozet Station was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a presentation. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. The Planning Commission made the following comments about SP -2007-00026 Crozet Station: 1. Most members believe that parking is appropriately relegated on the site with the parking garage at the rear. 2. The unit types proposed are acceptable and the PC noted that the applicant said that more than 15% would be affordable. 3. The height and massing of the buildings is appropriate. The PC did not agree with the ARB recommendations for 2 -story buildings for retaining views of the mountains. The PC said that the perspectives that had the support of the community were the ones that should be used. 4. Impacts of the residential units should be met with SP conditions. Old Business Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business. The November 6 Planning Commission meeting previously scheduled on Election Day was cancelled. There being no further old business, the meeting proceeded. New Business Ms Joseph asked if there was any new business. Mr. Strucko asked the Commission to support retention of the porch on the Cocina del Sol restaurant and the barbershop in a road widening project on Crozet Ave. because of the historic nature of the building. He said that the staff was pushing the owner to get rid of the porch because it is in the public right-of-way and that the reason for the road location was to preserve a tree. The Planning Commission supported Mr. Strucko's suggestion to save the porch on Crozet's barbershop and Cocina del Sol restaurant and asked staff to take their suggestion into consideration. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 28, 2007 8 FINAL ACTION MEMO Discussion was held on a question raised on copyright compliance. Mr. Kamptner will check and provide a follow up to the question. There being no further items, the meeting proceeded. Adjournment With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. to the Tuesday, September 4, 2007 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — AUGUST 28, 2007 9 FINAL ACTION MEMO