Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199400002 Minutes 1994-11-01 11-1-94 1 NOVEMBER 1, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 1, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan (arrived at 7:25). Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 18, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT Oak. Knolls Subdivision _Review fQr Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (15.1=456 Review) - Albemarle County Service Authority water line extension to existing structures in Oak Knoll Subdivision located off Rt. 250 W in the Ivy area. and UREF North Fork Street Tree Plan - Proposed landscape plan for the UREF property. On the UREF plan, Mr. Dotson asked if this proposal addressed "the street in the vicinity of the MicroAire site, because the rest of this will brought back to us because of a comprehensive rezoning for the whole 500 acre piece, or will the lower piece not be brought back to us as part of a comprehensive rezoning?" Mr. Tim Rose, representing UREF, responded: "Our plan is just to build that small section of road off of Quail Run right now. We will not be building any other roads until we know your decision on the Comprehensive Plan (amendment)." Mr. Dotson clarified his question further: "I notice there is no landscaping along 606. I think that that would be an issue, but if on the other hand the landscaping, and other things, are going to be brought back to us with the comprehensive rezoning, we don't need to address that tonight and we can go ahead and approve this with the understanding that this is really all we are doing tonight." Mr. Rose responded: "That's our understanding." Mr. Mark Keller, representing UREF's engineering firm (McKee-Carson), explained: "This is an issue, I believe, that is affiliated with the approval of the rezoning of the southern part of the property, which I believe was done in the late 70's. I think one of the provisos of that approval of the Commission at that time was that before any final approvals of the final site plan submission for that southern portion was given, a master street tree plan for the interior 11-1-94 2 roads, to serve the whole parcel, the whole Park,...would be approved by the Planning Commission. That is what percipitated this. This issue raised its head as a result of Ms. Hipski bringing that to our attention, MicroAire being the catalyst for that. So, what I'd like you to do tonight, in the spirit of that proffer, is approve the street tree master plan which is a plan for and enabled by the approval of the southern portion of the rezoning. In other words, I wouldn't want, when parcel B8, for instance, is developed, which is totally within the southern part of the property, to have this issue again come to your attention, because, really that is not the intent of the proffer that was issued some 15 years ago." Ms. Huckle asked if it was the applicant's intent to "reconfigure the parcels on the southern part if the northern part is made part of the whole?" Mr. Keller replied: "I hope not. The roads haven't been designed, so there is a little difficulty in trying to establish how many trees and exactly the juxtaposition of the property lines, but those roads and that plan are superimposed over the latest scheme for the Park. In other words, what we did not do is go back, for clarity's sake, and take a 15-year old plan and try to superimpose a street tree planting. We did use our most recent proposal that is before you in a comprehensive plan amendment." Mr. Blue asked: "So, if I understood you correctly, it is not your intention to change anything as far as the present southern zoning is concerned. Assuming we approve the comprehensive plan amendment for the northern part, and then you do your development and come in for zoning, you are not planning to change anything on the zoning for the southern part? Is that correct?" Mr. Keller responded: "In the present zoning of the southern part?" No." Mr. Blue concluded: "So the changes will be with site plans.." Mr. Keller responded: "That's correct." Mr. Keller stressed that none of the roads have been designed and submitted to VDOT. Mr. Blue felt there had been some confusion as to whether or not the applicant was going to try to change the zoning and there would be chances for proffers on the southern part. Mr Blue said it was his understanding that was not the applicant's intent. Mr. Keller responded: "That's right. The proffers are all set, in my mind, on the southern part of the property." Commenting on Mr. Keller's earlier statement about interior streets, and recalling a neighboring property owner's concern about buffering, Mr. Dotson expressed a concern about buffering along Rt. 606. He pointed to a section of the southern portion which is bordered by Rt. 606, for which is there is no landscape proposal and he did not see "interior street" as part of the wording. Mr. Blue explained: "That can be taken care of in their site plan for that. This is a master street plan. I see your point--606 is a street and probably the heaviest traffic carrier. But the way I interpreted that condition was it was interior streets and if we're going to require plantings, etc. on 606, it would be done through the site plan." Ms. Hipski responded: "That's correct." She also called attention to condition No. 2--"This approval does not relieve 11-1-94 3 compliance with Section 32.7 of the Zoning Ordinance." She explained it is through Section 32.7 that screening requirements, street tree plantings along Rt. 606, etc. will be required. Mr. Baker added that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would contain language recommending that a buffer be retained around the whole UREF site. Mr. Dotson concluded: "So if we were to approve this tonight, this does not undo such a subsequent action." Mr. Keller responded: "That's our understanding as well." Pointing to the plan, Mr. Dotson asked an additional question: "If this is the northern- southern border, why was the detail shown here?" Mr. Keller explained: "The reason for that is the plan that was performed and viewed and approved for the southern portion some 15 years ago showed a road--if you could imagine, Quail Run Extension, continuing through that T-intersection,just north of parcel B9, you might notice there is an existing road bed that parallels a stream and ends up hitting 29 about in the same place, but it goes under parcel E. That was the previous alignment for that connector road. Since that road was an integral part of the transportation plan for the southern parcel at that point in time, we were compelled to include some sort of plan for whatever road substituted for that." Ms. Imhoff commented: "I am a little confused though. For me, if we're looking at the street tree master plan, it should only cover that southern portion unless there is some language that I am not aware of in that original rezoning that says the street tree plan would go off-site. I want to be sure that we are real clear about what we are approving because there are things that are still very open and should be and are not yet set. Somehow, if we approve this tonight, I want to add language that clearly identifies it is only the southern portion." She asked: "Are you saying there is some language that says you are supposed to have an off-site street plan as well?" Mr. Keller replied: "No." Mr. Blue attempted to clarify the issue: "When this street plan for the whole thing was set up and made a condition--back then they probably should not have gone beyond what they were going to get zoned, or maybe the zoning hadn't taken place at that time. I guess it took place at the time of the zoning." Ms. Huckle: "But I think you said that it really wasn't where it is now." Mr. Blue: "Right. It tied in at the same place. It still went off the southern portion and came in at the same place on 29. It's really just a housekeeping (issue). To keep things legal, we have to do this, but it really doesn't have much bearing on what we're ultimately going to see on the development of this property." Mr. Keller responded "That's right." He added: "I think we felt it would be queer to, first of all as an option, go back to a very old plan and give you something that really you would be approving something you know isn't going to happen. Where as this, we feel fairly certain will (happen). Another option was to take it right to that imaginary property line and stop • 11-1-94 4 (which would have led to the question) 'you're going to build that road and not landscape that?' What you're seeing is a good faith effort on our part. I hope it doesn't convolute the issue at this point." Mr. Dotson concluded: "So beyond the border, it is for illustration purposes." Mr. Keller responded: "Not truly. Let's say, for instance, parcel B8 requires that connection to Rt. 29, then the road would have to built, and if that ever were the case, you'd want street trees along that. Is that a reasonable assumption?" Mr. Blue responded: "It is to me because I think we'll take care of the rest of it at the time of site plan, but I understand why some Commissioners have a problem." Mr. Dotson noted that no sidewalks were shown on the drawing. He asked if that was a "done deal." He was disturbed at the idea of a "totally auto-dependent facility." He felt this issue was relevant to the landscaping plan. Mr. Keller was not familiar with the original history of the rezoning (15 years previous) and could not answer Mr. Dotson's question. Mr. Baker felt the issue of sidewalks could be addressed through the rezoning of the northern portion. He explained that if the comprehensive plan amendment is approved the applicant will have to submit a master concept plan. He stated that UREF has agreed to interconnecting the open space through pathways, trails, etc. Based on all that had been said, Mr. Dotson concluded: "What we're really looking at tonight is knocking an obstacle out of the way of MicroAire and in various ways and venues we will have a chance to consider these questions again in the future, assuming the comprehensive plan (amendment) is approved." Mr. Rose responded: "That's how it was portrayed to us." Mr. Dotson expressed no oppostion to the item remaining on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Imhoff commented: "I agree with Bruce. But I have been operating under the assumption that we were going to have a master plan for both the north and the south portions. So some of this will be re-presented and re-packaged and with that understanding, I can go forward with it as well. I am a little uncomfortable approving something I consider to be off-site." Mr. Rose commented: "I didn't know we were asking you to approve the off-site items and if that is how it came across, we apologize. We thought we were focusing on the MicroAire." Ms. Imhoff responded: "O.K. That makes me comfortable." Ms. Huckle noted that the minutes would reflect the Commission's intent. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that both items on the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.