Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199100004 Minutes Zoning Map Amendment 1991-10-16October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 1 (Page 16) added that he has no idea who sent it. He then asked if the applicant would like to speak. The applicant, Mr. Joseph Maney, stated that he has worked extensively with the Planning Commission and they have agreed on a set of conditions for approval of his request. He has no problem with the conditions and said he would be glad to answer any questions Board members may have. There were no questions for Mr. Maney. Mr. James Chapman, a neighbor of Mr. Maney's, said he is proud to have Mr. Maney in the area. Mr. Maney moved here from Florida and has shown himself to be a dear friend. He feels that Mr. Maney's television and VCR shop would be an asset to the whole community. Mr. Chapman said that he has talked to a lot of people in the Keswick and Cismont areas, and they have no problem with the business. He noted the postcard that Mr. Bowie mentioned and said that the card refers to traffic. He does not think the traffic will be a problem because heavy trucks travel on gravel roads all throughout the county. He does not think that traffic has ever hurt a road. He does not feel that this Board should deny Mr. Maney's request because of a few additional vehi- cles a day on a road. A person who did not identify himself said that he has a business in his home and it has worked out well for himself and his neighbors. Be lives in a rural area and he reminded Board members that the American farm is a home business and somewhat commercial in nature. He also mentioned that business in a home allows a family to stay closer together which builds a stronger family relationship. He then asked who sent the postcard. No one responded. Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said that after she read the staff report and the minutes of the Planning Commission, she was surprised at the Planning Commission's action to recommend approval this request. She believes the final decision should relate to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. She considers this application a commercial enterprise. She feels this use would be detrimental to adjacent properties because it is not in character with the district, it is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance for rural areas, and it belongs in a commercial area. She was disappointed in the Commission's action and thinks that approving this application would be a mistake. She thinks it is a mistake to approve something based on popularity votes. She added that there is no way to know who will own this property in the future, therefore, she will oppose SP -91-48. Mr. Bain commented that he thinks it is important to consider the type of home operation. Mrs. Humphris said she has no problem with a home occupation as long as it does not bring in additional traffic to the area. Mr. Bowie said he also supports home occupations, but with this applica- tion, he has a problem with the traffic. Mr. Bowerman said he also is concerned with the increase in traffic. He said that although the number of vehicles might not be significant, the additional traffic does make a substantial difference in this neighborhood. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to deny SP -91-48. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-91-04. Forest Lakes Associates. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 356.8 ac from RA, R-1 & PUD to PUD (Deferred from October 2, 1991). Mr. Cilimberg said he hopes the Board has had a chance to review the material it received on this request. He then distributed the following letter dated October 16, 1991: N October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) I. "Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Wayne: I would like to make the below listed changes/clarifications with reference to the proffers relative, to ZMA-91-04, Forest hakes South as listed in Ron Keeler's letter of September 20, 1991. Proffer #1: Please add ', or other items in the Albemarle County Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project (Forest Lakes South) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P. direct- ly related to this project (Forest Lakes South).' Proffers #7 & $: Please change "We agree" in each to 'The owner agrees'. In addition to the above, I would like to reaffirm our willingness to work with staff to provide an alignment for a connection to Timberwood Parkway/Meadow Creek Parkway once its alignment has been determined by future study. Finally, I would like to comment on the 10% figure included in Proffer #4 relative to the number of units constructed within ten (10) years. As we have indicated, we would expect 560 units for Forest Lakes South based on the density of development of Forest Lakes North, but have proffered 1200 maximum units to allow flexibility to respond to market conditions as may be required. Thus, the 10%, or 120 units as applied to the 1200 unit proffer, amounts to 21% of the expected density of 560 units. We are willing to increase the 10% to 20%, or 240 units, which represents 43% of the expected total of 560. Please advise if you have any questions. Sincerely, (SIGNED) Stephen N. Runkle" Mr. Bowie expressed confusion about Proffer #4 and then asked about the percentage of dwelling units. Mr. Cilimberg said in response to concerns expressed about the number of dwelling units, the applicant agreed to change the percentage from ten percent to 20 percent, or 240 units, which would require that this many units be developed over the ten year period to insure the permanence of their zoning. Mr. Cilimberg then explained that Proffer #1 indicates that this money will be provided for schools or other Capital Improvement Plan projects related to the Forest Lakes South project or other items not normally included in the CIP, but directly related to this project. He added that this insures that the money can be used, but there is some discretion as to how it can be used. Mr. Bowie asked if a debate could arise as to what "directly" or "indi- rectly" means in relation to the project. Mr. St. John answered that there is always the chance of a debate on what is or is not related to a project. He said that there could be an argument on any of the proffers, but this language v_ closely tracks the section of Code that governs what can and cannot be done with proffers. He thinks that if the applicant is in agreement, the word, "directly," should be omitted from the sentence. He again said that the possibility of any argument in the future cannot be omitted. Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John to explain Proffer #2 which reads in part: "Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albe- marle County or its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for such public use facilities as the County may select, a parcel of approximately, five acres ...." Mr. St. John replied that the proffer refers to the site for I- October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 3-8 (Page 18) a fire station, police, etc. This proffer directly relates to the history of this property. There is a company which owns the mineral rights on this property so all deeds and contracts relative to this property include this language. This language can only be eliminated through legal means. He does not think the County's position is jeopardized in any way. Mr. Bain asked if the property is subject to items of record affecting the title now. Mr. St. John replied "yes," Mr. Cilimberg then mentioned Proffers #7 and 418 and said the changes wer made to clarify the language as to who is agreeing to the proffers. He pointed out the paragraph regarding Timberwood/Meadow Creek Parkway which states that the applicant intends to work with the County if, at some point, an alignment is established or designated within the property of this rezon- ing. He thinks this can be easily carried forward, not only as a proffer, but as a condition of the PUD. In addition, the proffers can carry agreements on how the developer will carry out the project. He said that this is allowed b3 County ordinances and the State Code for planned developments. Mr. Cilimberg then called attention to Proffer #1. He explained that the language would probably have to be clarified in this proffer so that the proffers can be broken down into three sections and referenced in a manner so that there is no confusion. He does not think that any change would involve the intent of the proffer. He said that he has already taken care of this and can provide the Clerk with the rewording of Proffer 411. Mr. Bowerman called attention to the final paragraph in the letter of October 16 relating to Proffer 414 and the required percentage of dwelling units. He asked if this is interpreted as either 120 or 240 units represent- ing the ten percent. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the ten and twenty percent are based on the maximum number of 1200 units that can be built in the develop ment. Mr. Bowie asked if there was a 20 percent stipulation in the proffer, then the developer could build 43 percent at the lower level. Mr. Cilimberg said if the developer could only build 560 units, he would have to build 240 of the 560 units. Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if within a ten year period, the developer had only built 200 homes. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the develop- er would lose his zoning and the County could then downzone the property. Mr. Bain said the carrying capacities of the growth areas have been discussed considerably by the Board as they relate to the Comprehensive Plan. He cannot think of one place in the Urban Area where growth has exceeded the growth stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan. This project gives him concern because the developer expects to have no more than 560 units spread over the entire acreage which equates to approximately two and one-half dwelling units per acre. He thinks this will force the Board to expand the growth areas close to where other growth areas are located. He knows that developers, particularly with major developments, have to look at the market, but he also thinks that there are times when a developer can lead the market in terms of what is being provided. This developer has pulled in development at Forest Lakes from all areas of the County. He would like to see the Board hold Forest Lakes to the recommended capacity. He went on to say that 800 units would be less than four units per acre, but, nonetheless, it would be at the top of what is included in the Comprehensive Plan for that whole area of Forest Lakes South. He would like to encourage the developer to build 800 units there to keep growth in that area. This would also prevent the deve- loper from building 250 units on another 175 to 200 acres at a later time. He stated that the history of development around the County in the growth areas compared to recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan needs to be considered. He is concerned that this sort of development is "eating" up land more quickly than anticipated. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the staff has always encouraged planned developments and many developers try to meet this demand from a planning perspective. The problem Mr. Bain has identified is noticed when property is zoned R-6, R-10, R-15, etc., and then the market changes and only three units are built on an acre of R-10 zoned property. He said the staff is trying to encourage more innovative and creative planning, and he hopes the County will \t- October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 1 9 not be too restrictive in providing a trade -off. He added that, with Forest Lakes, there is major planning involved and some creative designs with the interior streets. There are proffers to consider and to some extent flexi- bility has to be provided. He knows that it is difficult with a property the size of Forest Lakes to try to develop it and forecast the market when the buildout will be years into the future. Mr. Tucker said he agrees with Mr. Bain that it is a problem when property is developed at a lower density. During the next five-year review of the Comprehensive Plan, some additional growth areas will need to be provided elsewhere. He thinks that if this type of planning is encouraged, then some flexibility will have to be given from the market standpoint. He pointed out that the developers are putting them- selves on the line in terms of financing such things as streets, land, etc., for years into the future. He added that property no bigger than 10, 15 or 20 acres and zoned R-10 and R-15 can be purchased by a developer and developed at a much lower density. Mr. Cilimberg commented that it would be hard to insure that 800 units will be constructed in Forest Lakes. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the flexibility has to be maintained because the market will determine what will be built. He thinks a developer will build what can be sold. His concern, however, is the availability of low- and moderate-income housing. This has been discussed considerably and is addresse in the Comprehensive Plan, but little has been done, and it is still a problem in this community. He wondered what kind of response the Charlottesville Housing Foundation would get if it wanted to buy 50 lots in the Forest Lakes development for low- and moderate-income housing. At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked if the appli- cant was present. Representative the applicant, Mr. Steve Runkle said it is difficult to answer questions which have been raised since there are variables which affect the answers. He first answered Mr. Perkins question relating to low- and moderate-income housing. He said that the answer would be "yes" if the housing could be structured in some way that would permit those homes and residences to be integrated into the whole community. In his judgment, the programs that are available to help provide subsidization do not allow for this type of situation. Mr. Perkins asked if this would depend on how the grant was written. Mr. Runkle answered that he does not know. He said that this is not an area in which he has worked, but he has helped develop the management side of low- to moderate-income housing. Mr. Perkins remarked that there should be some flexibility. If the State is interested in providing low- and moderate-income housing, and it wants the counties to do the same, then there has to be some flexibility in the State's program. Mr. Runkle responded that the best result would be one that allowed the low- and moderate-income families' homes to be interspersed among other homes rather than kept separate. Then, a person would not be able to tell one product from another. The difference would be that the subsidy would be applied on an individual basis. He has suggested this type of situation previously, but it is his understanding that because of the various sources of funding, it is impossible to do. He agrees that flexibility should be achiev- able because it would provide the best result, but he does not think he knows how to achieve this flexibility in terms of dealing with the appropriate State and Federal agencies. He went on to say that if the County wants to approach that independently, then he thinks the flexibility would be great. Mr. Bowie asked if the County, with help from the State or Federal governments, came up with a way to finance ten percent of the houses for moderate income families, would the applicant work with the County to accom- plish this ten percent. Mr. Runkle answered that he does not think the nature of the product would necessarily change. He added that certain products would be subsidized for individual users, but he does not think that the cost to the County or the funding would be any different. He said that the only diffe- rence would be that the houses would all be located together, and there would not be a separate designated area with a block of money to develop it for low- to moderate-cost housing. 1- October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 2 O (Page 20) Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Runkle is saying that within a block there might b ten $125,000 homes, but one of those homes might be subsidized by a certain program. Mr. Runkle indicated agreement. Mr. Bowie asked if this kind of arrangement would be acceptable to the developer. Mr. Runkle answered "yes." He added that in Forest Lakes North, there will be a townhouse area with units that will probably cost from $90,00 $115,000. He said that while this is more than the $65,000 target figure the County used at Crozet Crossing, if the same amount of money was taken and use to subsidize a $90,000 townhouse, probably as many users could be satisfied. He stated that another advantage would be that these low income houses would be spread among the other houses. Mr. Runkle said other issues that have to be considered are design criteria, market conditions, road requirements and guaranteeing the mainte- nance of private roads. He pointed out that these types of issues diminish the potential of increased density. He added that on land such as Forest Lakes South, there are also topographic, wetlands and soil condition issues that significantly impact the achievable density. He thinks that there will be a significant shift in the type of product offered if 800 units are con- structed because a lot of them would then have to be apartments. He added that in today's market he can yield as much economically out of R-15 property by building townhouses on the property at seven units an acre as he can by selling it to an apartment developer who could build 12 or 15 apartments on it. He added that, from an economic standpoint, he would like to get 800 or 1200 units constructed, but he does not think realistically that will happen. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan stipulates 1800 to 2000 units maximum. He said that bonuses for affordable housing could be considered, but the bonuses are meaningless when the numbers get to the point that they cannot be supported. No one else wished to address ZMA-91-04, so Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing. Mr. St. John suggested that the wording for Proffer #1 be changed to indicate that the money proffered will be "reasonably related" to the Forest Lakes project instead of "directly related" because this is the exact language of the Code. Mr. Runkle agreed to the change in language in the first proffer Mrs. Humphris said she is satisfied with the request given the comments made and changes suggested. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Proffer #4 be changed from ten percent to 240 units, if Mr. Runkle is agreeable to the change. Mr. Runkle stated that it would probably be less confusing and he agreed to the change. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that Proffer #4 could state that: "In the event that u at least 240 dwelling units as stated in Proffer til have not been built Mrs. Humphris then offered motion to approve ZMA-91-04, Forest lakes Associates, with Proffers included as V-1 and V-2 in booklet entitled "Forest Lakes South Rezoning Application" dated June 17, 1991, amended August 13, 1991, signed by Frank A. Kessler, General Partner; Proffers in letter dated September 17, 1991, addressed to Ronald S, Keeler, Chief of Planning, signed by Stephen N. Runkle; and Proffers in letter dated October 16, 1991, addressed to V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, signed by Stephen N. Runkle, and as amended verbally and agreed to by Mr. Runkle at the Board's meeting on October 16, 1991. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Bain said he would support the request, but it will be the last one that he will support without the Board making a decision on how to solve the density problem, how important it is and what the Board and staff can do on developments in the growth areas to meet the carrying capacity that has already been established. He said that this issue needs to be addressed so that when an application comes before the Board, the issue can be considered ' from a different approach. Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Board needs to take a hard look at the Comprehensive Plan when it is next reviewed. October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 2 3 - Mr. Mr. Perkins commented that he does not think that capacity is being lost when houses are being built on property. He said that the inner circle where people need to be will be the area that should have apartments even though some single family homes may have to be destroyed to build them. Mrs. Humphris asked if "floors" can legally be established. Mr. Cilim- berg replied that floors could be established in the PUD for some areas of the development. With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. (The approved Proffers are set out below:) 1. The development of the residential portion of the property shall not exceed 1200 dwelling units, provided, however, that once the density exceeds 800 dwelling units, the owner shall contribute at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for each dwelling unit in excess of 800 units the sum of $1000.00 per unit to an escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County to either expand the capacity of Hollymead Elementary School or to con- struct a new school in the northern area of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, or other items in the Albemarle County Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project (Forest Lakes South) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P. reasonably related to this project (Forest Lakes South). 2. Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for such public use facilities as the County may select, a parcel of approximately five (5) acres as shown on the Application Plan for Forest Lakes South made by Clower Associ- ates, Inc., provided the owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the five (5) acres. 3. Except for the five (5) acres described in Proffer 2 above, the development of the property will be limited to those uses allowed by right under Section 20.3.1 and Section 20.4.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia. Further, under Section 20.4.1(2) of the Ordinance, the uses permitted by right under Section 23.0, Commercial Office (CO), will be limited to Section 23.2.1 (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (11). To be exclud- ed from use by special use permit under Section 20.3.2 of the Ordinance are Sections 20.3.2 (3) and (7). To be excluded from use by special use permit under Section 23.2.2 of the Ordinance are Sections 23.2.2 (1), (2), (4), (7) and (8). 4. In the event that at least 240 of the dwelling units stated in Proffer 1 have not been built and a certificate of occupancy issued within ten (10) years from the date of the final approval of this Zoning Map Amendment, then the undersigned applicant agrees to waive its rights under Virginia Code Section 15.1-491(al). 5. No lot within the property will front on or have direct access to any roads within the Hollymead PUD. 6. Residential Areas 7 and 8 as shown on the Application Plan for Forest Lakes South made by Clower Associates, Inc., will be developed with single-family detached dwelling units. 7. The owner agrees to provide recreational facilities in accordance with Section 4.16 for multi -family areas remote from the central recreational area.