Albemarle County Planning Commission

April 17, 2007

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Pete Craddock, Duane Zobrist, Jon Cannon, Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko and Marcia Joseph, Chairman.  Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman was absent.  Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent. 

 

Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; David E. Pennock, Principal Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Director of Zoning & Current Development; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Allan Shuck, Engineer; Elaine Echols, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. 

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

            Public Hearing Items:

 

ZMA 2004-00018 Fontana Phase 4C (Signs #37, 45)

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 17.146 acres from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre), R-4 Residential zoning district (4 units/acre) and R-1 Residential zoning district (1 unit/acre) to R-4 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at 4 units per acre for 34 dwelling units at a gross density of 1.98 units/acre.

PROFFERS:  Yes.

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Neighborhood Density Residential - (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in Neighborhood 3 – Pantops.

ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.

LOCATION:  At the intersection of Fontana Drive (Rt. 1765) and Via Florence approximately 0.5 miles from the intersection of Fontana Drive and Stony Point Road (Route 20 North).

TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78E-A.

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.

STAFF:  Elaine Echols

 

Ms. Echols summarized the staff report and presented a staff report. 

·         This request was accepted for processing less than the normal time.  As a result there was a lot of exchange between the applicant and staff.  Therefore, all of the corrections that needed to be made to the staff report after the final check with the applicant were not included. 

·         The critical slopes waiver attachment dated 4-17-07 was distributed tonight.  The staff report says that it was requested, but staff omitted it from the final packet of information.

·         Staff has done an analysis for the Commission’s consideration.  But, staff does not want the Commission to feel pressured to do it tonight.  If the Commission does not feel that they can process this request, staff can bring the request back at a later time.  If the Commission feels comfortable, staff recommends approval.

·         On page 5, the report indicates that the owner agrees with the County’s cross section for Fontana Drive and later in the report it contradicts it.  It is otherwise since there is a waiver requested.

·         Although staff has requested additional comments from the Service Authority, they have not given additional comments. The original comments stand that the water and sewage that is out there is adequate.  But, staff has not gotten any further information. 

·         In August of 2006 the Commission received a deferral request from the applicant.

·         Fontana 4C is the last phase of Fontana, which is located in the Pantops area east of Route 20 and north of Richmond Road, Route 250.  It is adjacent to Lake Ridge.  This is a rezoning from RA, R-1 and R-4 to R-4 with a proffered plan and proffered.  It is a proposal for 34 single-family lots on 15.471 acres.  It is slightly less than 2 units per acre and adjacent to the existing phases of Fontana.  Public streets are proposed.  Fifteen percent of affordable housing in the form of cash for five (5) units is proposed.  For the CIP $3,000 per unit has been proffered. 

·         The connecting road is Fontana Drive.  This is coming in with 2 pieces.  The piece to the far right contains 2 proposed cul-de-sacs.  The cul-de-sac to the north contains a number of lots.  Then there are some existing lots and undeveloped parcels on the Via Florence that are also proposed to be included.  It is heavily wooded and has steep topography. 

·         A portion of the property was zoned R-4 in 1994.  The property zoned R-1 was left for future rezoning.  The property zoned RA was left until the property could be served by public water.  There was a preliminary plat approved for Fontana in 1997, which has expired.  The preliminary plat included this area for 9 lots.  Now the applicant would like to get it rezoned and get 34 lots.  Water service has improved since that original approval of the preliminary plat and from the rezoning.  There have been several rezoning applications that have been reviewed.  A staff report was distributed in August, 2006.  The applicant has been working with staff fairly regularly since then to try to bring this project to completion.

 

·         There are proffers submitted with the plan. 

                                                                                                                                   

·         Proffer 1: Conformity with Plans – The applicant is proffering the rezoning plan.  This proffer is appropriate and will need to be updated with the last revised version of the rezoning plan.

 

·         Proffer 2:  Final grading plan:  An overlot grading plan is proffered which is acceptable to staff.

 

·         Proffer 3:  Affordable Housing:  The applicant is proffering to provide cash in lieu of affordable housing units which is acceptable to the Housing Director.  Although the proffer is not written correctly, the applicant has indicated he will be providing $2427 per unit which equals which is equal to $16,500 for 5 units (15% of the total units proposed).  The Housing Director believes that it would be more advantageous to the County if half of the money was provided up-front at the time of building permit and the other half when the 16th unit is permitted; however, it is acceptable as proffered. 

 

·         Proffer 5:  Trees:  As indicated in Attachment F, a prior proffer required that five trees per lot with approximately ten trees per acre be provided or retained on all lot designated areas on the final plan.  The purpose of this proffer is to try to provide for visual buffering from Monticello by retaining or replanting trees.  It is acceptable. 

 

·         Proffer 6:  Pedestrian Paths:  The owner has indicated he will build the pedestrian paths shown on the rezoning plan according to standards in the Design Standards Manual.  The proffer says that the owner will not request a building permit for the 9th house until the paths are completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Department of Community Development.  This proffer will need to be wordsmithed; however, it is generally acceptable.

 

·         Proffer 7: Cash Proffer:  The owner is proffering $3000 per unit for 34 units for parks, fire, rescue and police.  The proffer value would be $102,000. 

 

·         There is a proffer that the applicant will not make application for grading in 4C until improvements in phases 1, 2, 3 and 4A are completed.

 

·         There are some outstanding engineering issues that keep staff from recommending approving.  There is a drainage issue that the County Engineer, Glenn Brooks, will speak to that needs to be addressed.  That is in an area that is off site from the proposed rezoning, but in Fontana itself.

 

·         There is another issue related to bonds.  Outstanding improvements are needed.  Proffers for phases 1, 2, 3 and 4A say that the applicant will not do any additional grading until he has completed all of those improvements, which includes the pedestrian paths as well as other improvements.  Phase 4B has not been proffered to be completed.  The applicant has said that the lots have been sold to another builder and the bond is still being held in the owner’s name.

 

·         The Fontana Drive cross section is an extension to Lake Ridge.  The County standard section is curb and gutter, sidewalks on both sides of the street and a planting strip for street trees.  The applicant has requested at Fontana Drive that curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees be on the east side only and a rural section be on the west side.  The applicant’s justification for that request is in the staff report.  Again, the County Engineer can speak on that issue more.

 

·         Staff is recommending several waivers on this rezoning.

 

WAIVERS

With this development, the applicant is requesting waivers for curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees on two short cul-de-sacs and curb and gutter and sidewalks on one side of Fontana Drive.  The applicant is also asking that the interconnections to the south and to the north be the only required interconnections. 

 

Waiver to Section 14-409 for interconnections:

 

Waiver to Section 14-410 for curb and gutter for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane and one half of Fontana Drive.

 

Waiver to Section 14-422 of the Subdivision Ordinance for sidewalks.  The applicant has asked for a waiver to provide an asphalt path on one side of the street instead of sidewalks on both sides of the street for Belluno Lane and no sidewalks on Cortina Way.  The applicant has proposed a sidewalk on the east side of Fontana Drive only.

 

Waivers to Section 14-422 D of the Subdivision Ordinance for planting strips are requested in for Cortina Way and Belluno Lane.  The following analysis is provided for both areas on the plan:

 

If the engineering issues can be resolved staff can recommend approval of the rezoning with the following changes:

 

 

Staff has reviewed the critical slopes waiver request.  The County Engineer has made an analysis of it.  When building on steep terrain, as with Lake Ridge, there is just not way to do density and protect all of the slopes.  The measure generally used for whether or not slopes should be disturbed relates to the open space plan.  If there are systems of critical slopes that are shown on the open space plan or relate to a stream buffer they want to protect those.  Where they have other bands of critical slopes, staff is not as worried about them in the development areas.  For the sake of density in the development areas they can recommend approval of the critical slopes waiver.  There is a proffer for an overlot grading plan, which should help with the re-grading of the lots. 

 

Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Ms. Echols.  There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant invited to address the Commission.

 

Steve Driver, of Terra Engineering and Land Solutions and representative for the applicant, said for the last three years they have been working towards getting approval for the final phase for Fontana.  Based on the staff report there are three areas that require some discussion tonight. 

·         Regarding the storm water issue, the 11 lots to the east are draining Via Florence down to a natural ditch that goes into a storm water management basin located in the Luxor development.  This has been discussed with the applicant and Glenn Brooks.  The applicant has agreed to extend the storm drain, which currently stops at the end of the cul-de-sac on Via Florence.  He has agreed to extend the pipe from the end of Via Florence down to the rear of the two lots, 96 and 97.  That should handle and address the outstanding drainage concern. 

·         The other issue concerned completing phase 4B construction prior to approval of the grading plan for phase 4C.  That phase has been sold to Hauser Homes.  All of the general construction work has been completed.  The infrastructure is in place, which includes the sewer and water lines, ditches, the road section and so forth.  All that remains to be done in that phase is to build the homes.  That is beyond the control of the applicant.  So he would ask to be relieved of having to complete that phase as a condition of Phase 4C approval. 

·         The third issue deals with the typical section on Fontana Drive Extended.  All of Fontana was originally designed in 1997 and Fontana Drive specifically was designed to be extended into Lake Ridge in the future.  There was a provision for that.  Several lots have been platted and have been sold along the corridor road, specifically lot 120.  Lot 112 would be the immediate lot to the right where the new road would begin.  Then behind lot 112 would be lot 113.  Further to the rear would be lot 118 where the applicant currently resides.  All of these 4 lots were platted and sold based on the original road way and right-of-way section that was proposed and approved in 1997.  That right-of-way was intended to be 50’ wide with a rural section.  The problem with providing a full section in accordance with the current standards is that the right-of-way width between lots 112 and 120 is 50’ wide.  The right-of-way width proposed with the Lake Ridge plan is 54’ wide.  That includes curb and gutter, a 6’ planting strip and a 5’ sidewalk.  So that is an issue that needs to be discussed.  It appears that a waiver will be required of some sort to this current standard section. 

·         The applicant would also request the Planning Commission’s consideration of not requiring curb and gutter on the west side of Fontana Drive.  The length of road between Verona Drive and the first intersection in Lake Ridge is about 1,100’.  Along that section of road there will never be more than 2 lots that front along that 1,100’.  It does not seem to be a need for a sidewalk on that side.  That is something that the applicant would like the Commission to take into consideration in addition to the problem with fitting the right-of-way within the 50’ width between lots 120 and 112.  Beyond that a wider right-of-way section could be provided.  However, it would be necessary to have variable width right-of-way 54’ or wider because the mathematically there are not tangent sections in the alignment.  It is all a series of horizontal curves.  So it is not possible to fit a 54’ right-of-way in a 50’ designated area for previously platted lots without providing for a variable right-of-way.  It would affect to a minor extent the alignment in Lake Ridge if they use the typical section proposed.  The applicant has met with the Lake Ridge developer who indicated that the alignment is not a major issue for them and the mathematical alignment is something they can accommodate within Lake Ridge.

·         The applicant has agreed to allow the connection to Cascadia to the same condition that the Planning Commission recommended for approval for that development.  That would be providing the right-of-way and also grading that road in so it could be used as an emergency and pedestrian connection.

·         Some of the requests from staff regarding the proffer revisions have been completed.  A note has been added to the rezoning plan in regards to the Cascadia connection. So a lot of these revisions have been made.  They do not see any problems in resolving any remaining issues to move the project forward.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Driver.  There being none, public comment was invited.

 

Ken Webster said generally he was in favor of the request.  But, after reviewing the details he had one concern. Proffer 9 in the handout says that the owner shall not submit application for erosion and sediment control until all improvements in phase 1, 2, 3 and 4A for Fontana have been completed.  He was concerned with the removal of 4B from this.  Phase 4B does provide some pedestrian paths.  The Home Owners Association would want to be assured that any public space, a walking trail or land that would eventually be turned over to the Fontana Home Owners Association as common area would be taken care of.   The 4B properties already sold should not be a reason for the applicant not to be obligated to complete the public space requirements for 4B.

 

There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.  Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Driver to address Mr. Webster’s concern.

 

Mr. Driver noted that the pedestrian paths are part of the phase 4B site plan requirements.  A bond is in place for construction of the pedestrian paths.  It is the applicant’s intent to complete those.  It is the applicant’s obligation to do so as part of 4B construction.

 

Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Brooks to address some engineering concern.  In looking at the urban section the applicant has estimated that it takes 53’ to do this 12’ wide and then 2.5’ for curb and gutter with a 6’ planting strip and 5’ for the sidewalk.  Then there is another foot, which she was not sure what that means.  She asked what the other foot was for on the end past the sidewalk.

 

Mr. Brooks replied that it is usually ½’ on either side.  If VDOT is going to accept the sidewalk for maintenance they want to have a little more area than just the edge of pavement.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if there is a way they could fit the urban section within a 50’ right-of-way.

 

Mr. Brooks replied that it was, but the area is a very narrow constriction right at the intersection where this property comes in.  The applicant does not own one piece of property.  It is a 10’ or 15’ length of road and at that point the planting strip would be narrowed a bit.  It is only in an area of 2’ to 3’.  There are 6’ planting strips on either side of the road and it could all be fit in.

 

Ms. Joseph noted that they could do that within the planting strips.  Therefore, there would not be a tree at the intersection, which is probably not a bad thing anyway.

 

Mr. Brooks noted that the applicant might not be permitted a tree there for sight distance purposes anyway.

 

Mr. Zobrist said that he got the impression that it would not match up. 

 

Mr. Brooks pointed out that there is no sidewalk on the Fontana development.  So it ends at that intersection.  There is a sidewalk on the new road that ends at the intersection.  He pointed out on the slides that past this point everything will match up.  Before that point there is an existing rural section road with no sidewalk and just ditches.

 

Mr. Zobrist asked if the sidewalk would just end at that point, and Mr. Brooks replied that was correct.

 

Mr. Strucko said that was a source of his concern with this proposal.  The Commission considered Fontana as a subdivision when they looked at the Cascadia rezoning.  They heard and agreed conceptually that Fontana Drive in that rural cross section is simply inadequate for the existing traffic on it now, and they just added 138 units with Lake Ridge.  Now they are considering adding 34 units with this request.  The reason it was inadequate was that it was not wide enough and did not have sidewalks for all of the pedestrians and children and families that live along there.  This is the same developer that developed Fontana.  He was inclined not to be in favor of this along the grounds that he was not seeing any jester for improvements of Fontana Drive to handle those inadequacies.  Fontana is going to be connected to other developments through Verona and Olympia Drive as well.  So he was hoping that at least when they were looking at a rezoning in this area that there would be some suggestion for improvement to Fontana Drive to make it less dangerous and he did not see any of that here.  He liked what Lake Ridge did by holding that road standard to avoid the same dangerous conditions that Fontana currently faces internally so that internally within Lake Ridge pedestrians can move around safely.  But, they are still sitting with the circumstance of this rural cross section road in Fontana.  There is nothing listed in the proffers that address that issue.

 

Mr. Edgerton concurred with Mr. Strucko’s comments.  He had been struggling with the request and was surprised with staff’s recommendation.  He did not see any value in what had been proposed to the community.  If he read the staff report carefully enough it appears that previously this residue property was designated as open space.  That plan has expired.  It was designated as open space because of water concerns.  There is also a significant concern about the elevation and its impact on the community at large.  He was looking for some argument for increasing density. At 34 units they are getting less than 2 units per acre overall.  They have held firm with good reason by requiring other projects to meet current ordinance for urban cross sections and he did not see any reason to make an exception here.  He remained a little confused about the factor unfavorable #5.  In staff’s report it says although the bonds are being held in the applicant’s name the applicant has not agreed to complete all of the improvements in phase 4B before beginning phase 4C because he has sold the lots in phase 4B and no longer controls the ownership.  He did not understand how that legal responsibility disappeared when he sold the property.  Personally, he thought that this is a case where not granting a rezoning would be in the best interest of the County.  Therefore, he could not support this request

 

Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Edgerton’s concerns about proffer 9 about basically just walking away from some obligations in there.  He questioned if this is another phase or was this designated open space.

 

Ms. Echols replied that a portion of it was designated as open space.  There was an area zoned RA that was designated as open space, but it was not intended to be permanent open space.  A small portion of it was open space on the plan because there was really not much else they could do with it at the time.  There were no open space requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for the residential districts.  There was only a very small portion of R-4.  They really could not develop it under R-4 zoning because it was such a narrow piece.  It was not all open space and was shown for 9 lots on the original preliminary plat. 

 

Mr. Craddock said that there were comments on page 5 about Monticello and the view shed.  He questioned if the view shed requirements would be in effect now.  The view shed was not part of the prior approval. 

 

Ms. Echols replied that the design standards are recommendations and requests from Monticello and not requirements.  The tree proffers is a result of the concerns for the view shed, but the applicant did not proffer any architecture.  If it is something that the Commission feels should be included for the 34 lots, then that is something that could be requested.

  

Mr. Craddock said that he was not sold on the subdivision.  But, with this being up as high as it is he would suspect that at least in Monticello’s view shed that it should be in with their color suggestions.

 

Mr. Cannon said that this is a patch work of different zonings at present.  He asked if the request is to rezone to R-4. 

 

Ms. Echols replied that is correct.

 

Mr. Cannon asked what would be the maximum density achieved under the existing zoning.

 

Ms. Echols replied that theoretically according to acreage they could get 34 lots.  Realistically they can’t get that many lots because the way the road system is currently laid out.  The applicant has said they could not get more than 9 lots on it right now under the existing zoning.

 

Mr. Cannon asked if the original 9 lot proposal was the maximum that could practically be achieved under the existing zoning, and Ms. Echols replied yes.

 

Mr. Cannon asked in addition to the density through this rezoning what else would they be getting.

 

Ms. Echols replied that they would get $3,000 per unit, excluding the affordable units, for the equivalent of 15% affordable with 5 units with cash. 

 

Ms. Joseph noted that the cash is not $16,500, which is what they normally get.

 

Ms. Echols replied that it is.  It is just the way it is stated.  They are saying $2,475 per unit for the 34, which ends up being exactly the same as $16,500.  The applicant just stated it a little bit differently.  The applicant is meeting the 15 percent.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant is not going to build affordable unit, but were just giving cash

 

Ms. Echols replied that is correct.  That is something that Ron White has said he believes is acceptable with this small subdivision.

 

Mr. Cannon asked if the applicant has considered the issue of Fontana Drive in how the current Fontana exists, what its limitations are, how that would relate to the new portion to be constructed and whether there would be a possibility for improving some past portions.

 

Ms. Echols replied that has not been a subject of consideration.  There was no indication from VDOT that was something that was needed.   Mr. Brooks may want to speak more on that.  But, going back and retro-fitting a road can be very difficult.

 

Mr. Cannon asked if all of this is in the growth area, and Ms. Echols replied yes.

 

Mr. Brooks said that it has not been a topic.  It came up at a previous Commission meeting where the Fontana residents brought up the issue of feeling safe and having a place to walk on the road.  VDOT is only looking at whether it is a servable road for cars and does it get them through quickly.

 

Ms. Joseph noted that it is supposed to be multi-modal.

 

Mr. Brooks said that particular road and subdivision was approved 10 years ago.  With the size of the rezoning staff put some practical limits on how far off the property they go asking for improvements for existing neighborhoods.

 

Mr. Zobrist said that he was absent at the Cascadia discussion, but was swayed by the problem with Fontana Drive.  If they can’t get the road fixed, perhaps the developer should build their 9 houses and be on their way.

 

Mr. Brooks said that he was here when the original Fontana Subdivision was approved in 1997.  In 1997 there was a big debate on whether to provide curb and gutter for that subdivision.  It was not a mandatory part of the ordinance as they have heard in earlier topics. The ditch section won out at that time 10 years ago. 

 

Mr. Zobrist said that his issue is that it is probably not fixable to develop at this density even thought they would like to see the density in that area.  He suggested that they leave the community looking half way decent and not mess it up.

 

Ms. Joseph said that the reason they are doing this is because it is single family and it is difficult to build the units for single family unless you build something small.  But, it would be really nice if they would build something small.  She felt that they need to have sidewalks out there.  They need to have the drainage work properly and not cause problems in the future.  Therefore, she cannot support the request at this point.

 

Motion:  Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to deny the application for ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C due to the unfavorable factors listed in the staff report.

 

Discussion:

 

Ms. Joseph asked if the applicant was interested in any sort of deferral at this point or do they want to move forward.

 

Mr. Driver declined to defer the project.  The applicant would like to move forward to the Board of Supervisors.  If the only issue is that of the road section on Fontana Drive, he believed that the owner would be willing to put curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees on both sides of Fontana.  But, a waiver would still be necessary to vary the planting strip where it connects to the top of the hill. 

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant would be interested in improving Fontana Drive as suggested.

 

Mr. Driver replied that he can’t speak to that.  That question has not been raised before for the existing Fontana Drive. 

 

Mr. Edgerton noted that it has been discussed before.

 

Mr. Driver felt that might be a question for Mr. Brooks because he did not know if that would be a possibility at this point. 

 

Mr. Edgerton noted that he would not suggest that it would be easy.  It would require some effort.   He asked if he understands the concern there. 

 

Mr. Cannon asked Mr. Driver if he would be willing to take a deferral to consider that possibility.

 

Mr. Driver replied that he was speaking on behalf of the applicant.  Therefore, he was not in a position where he can say whether he would want to do that or not. He may choose just to develop it by right if this is not approval by the Board of Supervisors and just go with the 9 units.  He was just speculating.  But, he felt that he would be willing to make the section of Fontana Drive to the Lake Ridge property consistent with what Lake Ridge is doing with the exception of where he can’t do that because of the right-of-way limitations. 

 

Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the applicant had said no.

 

Mr. Cannon said that he hates to give up possible additional density here because every lot they don’t put in the growth area they were eventually putting somewhere else where they don’t now want it.   There seems to be consensus that there are existing infrastructure problems that make the density really not desirable or on balance here.  Based on that unless the applicants were willing to defer to consider that further, he would be opposed to the rezoning.

 

Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to deny the application for ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C due to the unfavorable factors listed in the staff report.

 

In summary, the Planning Commission expressed concern that the owner was not appropriately mitigating impacts.  In particular, the following issues were discussed:

1.  Fontana Drive is not sufficiently wide nor does it have sidewalks or paths, to support the additional traffic of Cascadia and Fontana Phase 4C.  To add more lots would be to place more pressure on a street that the residents in Fontana feel is inadequate now.  Fontana Drive should be upgraded where it is currently a rural section.

2.  Curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees are needed on both sides of Fontana Drive.

3.  Architectural standards should be included with the project in keeping with the Monticello Design Guidelines.

4.  A commitment to complete improvements in Fontana Phase 4b prior to beginning grading for Fontana Phase 4c is needed.

5.  Drainage improvements at the end of Via Florence are needed, in keeping with the recommendations of the County Engineer.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Mr. Morris was absent.)

 

Ms. Joseph said that ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C will go before the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for denial on July 18. 

 

Mr. Kamptner pointed out that there are a number of waiver requests.  The Commission could make a motion to deny the waivers because they are related to a plan that the Commission has recommended for denial.

 

Ms. Joseph noted that the waivers are described on page 19.

 

Motion:  Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, to deny the waiver requests as listed on page 19 of the staff report for ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C, including the critical slope waiver request.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Mr. Morris was absent.)

 

Ms. Echols asked for one piece of clarification on their original action.  The Commission said that for the factors unfavorable that were listed in the staff report.  One of the things that the Commission mentioned, which was not included in that, was off site improvements to Fontana Drive.  She asked if those were intended to be part of that motion.

 

Amended Motion for Clarification:

Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to amend the motion to deny the application for ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C to include the traffic conditions that have been pointed out to the Commission on previous occasions as not being addressed in this report that needs to be addressed in order for it to be further considered along with the unfavorable factors listed in the staff report. 

 

1.          The “form” is not in keeping with the Neighborhood Model; however, it is similar to the previously approved Fontana subdivision and is the last phase of that development.

2.          The density is not in keeping with the Land Use Plan, but, it is similar to the previously approved subdivision and is the last phase of the development.

3.          Curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the west side Fontana Drive extended are not proposed.

4.          Off-site drainage improvements in the developed part of Fontana are not appropriately provided to deal with run-off from this new section.

5.          Although bonds are being held in the applicant’s name, the applicant has not agreed to complete all improvements in Phase 4B before beginning on Phase 4C because he has sold the lots in Phase 4B to a builder and no longer controls the ownership.

6.          Traffic conditions on Fontana Drive have not been addressed.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Mr. Morris was absent.)

 

Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2004-00018, Fontana Phase 4C, would go before the Board of Supervisors on July 11, 2007 with a recommendation for denial.  The motion was made to deny the rezoning because curb, gutter, sidewalk and street trees were not proposed on both sides of Fontana Drive, off-site drainage improvements were not appropriately provided, there were no commitments to finish Phase 4b of the development before beginning Phase 4c, and traffic conditions on Fontana Drive had not been addressed.  None of the waivers was granted because the rezoning was not supported.

 

 

Return to exec summary