HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 31 78 PC MinutesPq
October 31, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission met on Tuesday, October 31, 1978,
7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William R. Washington, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. James L. Huffman, Jr.; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; and Mrs. Norma A. Diehl. Absent were Dr. James Moore; Mr. Charles Vest;
and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Members of the County Staff present were Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler - Assistant Director of
Planning; Mr.' Donald A. Gaston - Senior Planner; Ms. Mason Capterson - Planner; and
Mr. Frederick Payne - Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Minutes of October 17, 1978, were approved subject to the corrections made by
Mrs. Graves.
Sunny Hill Motel Final Plat:
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission comply with the applicant's request for
indefinite deferral. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously,
with no discussion.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 18-22 of the County Code and Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning
Ordinance to establish performance standards for off -site and on -site
drainage facilities.
Mr. Keeler noted that this had been deferred in order that the staff could
further address the resolution, noting that Mr. Bailey's report is a result of that
study. The resolution had also been deferred in order that the public could further
address the issue. He noted that Blue Ridge Home Builders Association had -requested
that"the impervious surface coverage of not greater than 10,000 square feet" be raised.
The staff had included a provision in the amendments addressing possible off -site
improvements where they would equally or better serve the public interest and safety
and where such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream properties.
Mr. Keeler then read to the Commission the proposed amendments noting that they would
help to establish consistency in review.
Mr. Bailey said that the purpose is to use the natural features of streams to
the utmost advantage where possible. Another feature would make it possible for
adjoining property owners to work together in the performance standards.
Mrs. Trina Cromwell, representing the League of Women Votes, addressed the
Commission on the merits of the amendments ( see attached sheets ).
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, said
he prefers the flexibility the ordinance affords now by addressing each individual
case. However, he said that after discussing the amendments with the staff, he is
not as concerned as he had originally been. He felt that these amendments would be
Is
most often applied in the urban area and noted that the effect will be cost
significant, no doubt affecting the cost of homes. He said that some of the R-3
property addressed in the report is unrealistically assumed to be developed by 1995.
He also noted that growth will certainly not be felt in the future as in the past,
due to the fact that the University is within 300 of its designated growth. In
Mr. Rotgin's opinion, storm water will not be a problem in the urban area. He also
expressed concern over the fact that the County Engineer is not able to determine
what the cost will be and thus it is difficult to determine if the measures will be
cost effective. Mr. Rotgin said that he feels the benefit should be worth the cost, notinc_
that it is impossible that government can cure all ills. He said that if the Commission
approves the amendments he would urge that the area of impervious cover be raised to
40,000-50,000 square feet. Also he said that it is important to include a provision
so that off -site facilities will be permitted where they will adequately handle a
problem that might be caused by development. ( He cited as an example replacing an
existing 15" pipe under Berkmar Drive with an 18" pipe. )
Mr. Bailey said that there have been cases where on -site facilities would have
saved monies for downstream properties that were later developed. He said that there
is always some uncertainty about addressing an issue until one is confronted with
a specific piece of property. He said that he would not be alarmed at raising the
figure of 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet.
Dr. Charles Hurt asked Mr. Bailey to consider 50 acres, zoned multi -family
sitting at the top of a hill.
Mr. Bailey replied that storage could be provided or a series of berms around
the property might be considered. However, he did state that there will be pieces
of property that will be difficult to deal with and therefore make the facilities
expensive.
Mr. Rotgin said that he is concerned about small pieces of land.
Dr. Hurt said that in the case of large tracts, he favors the application of
the amendments, however with pieces of property 50 acres and smaller, he sees lots
of problems.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if it would be possible to seek a variance in cases
where the measures for controlling drainage would be more damaging than without them -
he gave as an example clearing the land of all vegetation in order to control the
drainage.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the Commission defer further discussion on this matter
to a work session in order to more fully address all the concerns that had arisen.
Mr. Easter questioned the amount of land area that might be necessary to imple-
ment some of the facilities and noted that in cases of smaller pieces of property it
could take most of the land area.
Mr. Bailey said that the pond in Fashion Mall is small, but very deep.
Mr. Tucker said that the county staff prefers that the Commission and Board
enact some sort of legislation to enforce the policies that the County has been
following in the past.
Mr. Easter said that he is concerned about the long range effects of drainage,
however is also concerned about more and more laws on the books.
Mrs. Diehl said that in her opinion these amendments re -enforce the policies
the staff has been following. She said that she can agree to raising the area of
impervious cover to 20,000, since the County Engineer does not find that objectionable.
She said that she would like to explore Mr. Gloeckner's concern regarding possible
extensive damage due to the drainage facilities themselves. She also questioned if
the County Engineer has researched new materials being used for pervious cover.
Mr. Bailey said that he does not have that much information on the new materials
Mrs. Diehl is questioning. Mr. Bailey said that the County Engineering Department
reacts to the soil erosion methods and drainage facilities proposed by the developers
and does not push any one standard.
Col. Washington said that he is concerned about the cumulative effect in a
subdivision, since it is possible that all lots could be exempt from soil erosion
permits if they are developed individually.
Mr. Tucker said that it is necessary to rely on the County Engineer's expertise
and there is certainly nothing magic about the figure 20,000. However, he said that
one large subdivision would be c sids,r,� if it sere brought in in total. However,
in he said that existing parcelsAAroughouta ne county would be exempt from these provisions
when developed individually.
Mr. Bailey said that if the amendments are passed and a large subdivision is
proposed, the area of the roads in the subdivision will be divided by the number of
lots and the resulting percentage of 20,000 square feet is that area which would be
subject to this new ordinance. The ordinance will be applied at the time of subdivision
approval. The intent is to make the developer responsible for each lot prior to sale.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like to discuss where the county will draw
the line - is it better to remove 20 large oak trees in preference to a large drainage
facility and completely change the natural amenities of the land?
Col. Washington said that in his opinion this ordinance will further identify
those pieces of property that might not be identifiable otherwise. In general, he
said that he supports the ordinance.
Mrs. Graves said that she supports the ordinance, however would like a work
session in November to refine some of the points raised that evening.
Mr. Easter said that he is in full sympathy with the intent of the ordinance,
however is concerned about the consumer who will pay for it in the long run.
Mr. Huffman said that in the long run it is the consumer who will pay for it in
any fashion.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was prepared to vote on the amendments or she was
prepared to have a work session.
Mr. McCann said that he is concerned about tearing up the land, especially
in the urban area, in view of the cost of land.
Mr. Easter questioned in some cases if it would be possible to have a low spot
in a parking lot that could be used during heavy rains as the storage area.
Mr. Bailey said that he does not favor this sort of solution for storm water.
Mr. Tucker said that if the Commission defers the amendments, he wants
to know if the Commission wants to address land disturbance.
1400
Mr. Gloeckner
Mrs. Graves moved that action be deferred until November 14, 1978.
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter said that he would like for the League of Women Voters and the
Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association to review the comments and questions raised at
this meeting to determine if they wish to have additional input on the amendments.
Mr. Gloeckner asked who ends up with the ultimate responsibility of a dam
in a subdivision if the dam fails.
Mr. Tucker said that in the past the homeowners have been responsible through
homeowners' agreements.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would be concerned about the liability that goes
with a failure when the worst hazards are considered. He said that this should be
addressed beyond an engineer's liability.
Col. Washington said that if these amendments are approved, he certainly
not want to see a series of a few lots at a time - piecemeal subdivision - when it
would be possible for the developer to bring in a large subdivision to begin with.
Dr. Hurt said that he does not understand why these amendments would be limited
to one area.
Mr. Tucker said that the amendments would address only land proposed for
development in the Comprehensive Plan.
There was no further discussion on the amendments.
SP-78-59. Cecil S. McCumbee, III, has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 6.794 acres zoned A-1.
Property is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of Routes 6 and 800, and approximately 4 mile southeast of Routes 6
and 630. County Tax Map 126, Parcel 32A, Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Gaston presented the staff reported, noting that the house is to be
located on the site of the previous house and the applicant has plans to construct
a permanent dwelling at a later date.
Mr. Huffman reported that there is no way the adjoining property owner who
raised the objection could see the mobile home since they live 3/4 mile away from
the mobile home location. Also it will not be possible to see the mobile home from
either Route 6 or Route 800.
Mr. McCumbee said that he will live in the mobile home 2 years and then
hopefully will have the permanent dwelling completed.
19
Mrs. Graves questioned if the Commission saw the subdivision plat on !which
the new easement was established.
Mr. Gaston said that it was done quite a while ago and it was just noticed
by the staff in the update of the tax maps. He said that he did not know if the
plat were reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. McCumbee was informed by Mr. Payne that if he intends to build a house
in the next two years, he is not subject to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
review but falls under Section 11-14-3of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Commission took a five minute recess while Mr. Payne explained this
provision of the ordinance to Mr. McCumbee.
When the meeting re -convened, Mr. McCumbee requested that the Planning Commission
accept his request for withdrawal without prejudice of SP-78-59.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission accept the request, and Mr. Huffman
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Charlottesville -Albemarle Transportation Study Presentation:
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that in his opinion this is prematurely
before the Commission. He explained that two months ago, the Board initiated
a discussion regarding improvements to Route 29. Mr. Wrench, the Highway Commissioner
for this area, appeared before the Board of Supervisors regarding Route 29. At
that time, he asked that the Commission be given an overview of the CATS proposal
since any improvements to Route 29 would have an inpact on the study. Mr. Tucker
explained that no action was required by the Commission since the presentation is
for information only. He turned the meeting over to Jack Page of the State Highway
Department.
Mr. Page discussed the make-up of the policy and technical committees
and noted that the State Highway Department acts as staff to these committees.
He pointed out that the study is built around a model with a target date as year 2000.
The socio/economic data of Charlottesville and Albemarle County drive the model.
This data was collected by the City and comes from the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The end product of the study will be the traffic on the major thoroughfares and collectors
in the area. He noted that he will discuss what is known as Alternative #4 -
the alternative chosen by the committees. Major improvements included a western
by-pass ( though the facility is not specifically located at this time ) and another
residential collector of limited access east of Route b29 ( also not specified at this
time as to exact location ). Other improvements will^the upgrading of Rio Road.
To the south of I-64 will be a road paralleling Route 64. Route 29 is proposed
to be widened to six lanes to the point of the western bypass. Also proposed to
be widened are Route 250 over Pantops and Long Street. Mr. Page discussed other
proposals via the audio visual map.
Mr. Page then discussed the timetable for the study on the Route 29 North
corridor. He stated that the plan is being finalized and he expects it to be
presented to the Board of Supervisors in early January; at that time hopefully
the Board of Supervisors will forward it to the Commission for its input.
Mr. Easter thanked Mr. Page for his report and noted that it had been
very helpful.
Administrative Approval of Site Plans and Subdivisions:
Mr. Tucker stated that he had sent these proposed amendments to the
Commission about six weeks ago and since then he has made only one change -
in the schedule for submission and no substantive changes. He stated that he
has no presentation to make and would be happy to take comments from the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the staff had talked to Mr. Huja of the City
to determine their procedures. Mr. Gloeckner said that he thinks that Mr. Huja's
is the last word after everything is done, and if he is not satisfied then the
plan is forwarded to the City Planning Commission. Mr. Gloeckner questioned if Mr. Tucker
has the same authority.
Mr. Tucker said that he has no authority and at this point he and his staff
only review the plans and make recommendations to the Commission and/or Board.
Mr. Gloeckner said that in his opinion the City Planning Director gets a
lot out of the administrative procedure. Mr. Gloeckner further noted that the Planning
Commission is very untrained, whereas the staff is made up of professionals. He
said that he would like to see the administrative approval tried in order that the
county could make more use of the professionals it had employed and if it doesn't
work then nothing is lost and the ordinance can be amended to read as it had previously.
Mr. Easter said that in order to get the most use out of a trained staff,
the county has to give them the rope to do the job. He pointed out that the staff
is well -trained and at this point the County is not giving them room to practice
their profession. He said that in his opinion this is an injustice to the County.
Mr. Easter said that the Planning Director's lack of authority is a symptom of a bad
disease. At this point the Planning Commission does no planning, only policing, 1114)
and the Commission is sidetracked from its planning obligation. He said that
not only should the professionals be given a chance to practice their profession,
the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to lighten its workload in order
to properly work on the new zoning ordinance. If the Zoning Ordinance is passed in
any semblance of the way it is presented, the workload of the Commission will be
sutstantially increased. He said that he is concerned about the Commission's lack
of planning, due to the time factor, and he is concerned about the predicament the
staff is in. With the proper controls he felt this would be a good idea - and the
proper controls are as the amendments read: the ability of a Planning Commission
member, Board member, applicant, staff member to bring the site plan or subdivision
plat to the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl said that it is that very point that concerns her; she said that
she is concerned that the public will not be adequately informed of what has been
submitted. Furthermore, she said that if each Commission member conscientiously
does his job, she is not sure any time will be saved.
Mr. Tucker said that monthly a site plan or subdivision plat is sent to
the Board member from the district of the proposed development.
Mrs. Graves said that what they see is not the finished product, and this
concerns her.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is concerned about getting information in order to
determine if it is necessary to call up the plan. She said that it is important
that the county plan in totality.
Col-. Washington said that it is important for each Commission member to have
confidence in the other Commissioners' review of the site.
Ie!--, c,
Mr. Gloeckner asked that Mrs. VirginiaSchatz of the City Planning Commission
discuss the effectiveness of the administrative approval process in the city.
Mrs.Schatz said that the administrative approval process works well in the
city. She said that the Planning Commission used to review all the site plans.
With the administrative approval processjthe Commission established with the staff
the kinds of information and requirements it expected to be on the plans. She said
that the administrative staff followed these guidelines and acted in the same fashion
in which the Commission had been acting. She felt that the most important part of
the process is the "site plan conference". Each Commission member is aware of where
this conference is, when an item is on the agenda, and the adjoining property owners
are permitted to be present and comment. She said that this informal work session
enables many of the problems of concern to be worked out. She said that the neighbors
are permitted lots of input. She said that the City Planning Director always tells
the Commission members which proposals are really important ones, and encourages them
to come to the work sessions. She said that some plans eventually end up at the
Commission, however, it is mostly the more important ones and larger developments.
Mrs. Graves questioned the number of plans per month the city reviews.
Mrs.Schatz replied that there are usually 4-8 per month. These are just site plans.
She said that a minor subdivision can be approved through the administrative process,
however any subdivision over 10 lots is brought to the Commission. She said that the
site plan ordinance lists the requirements that must be shown on the site plan, and
therefore the requirements must be met.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the Commission has given the City Planning Director
the authority to require these. She responded that they have.
Mrs. Diehl established from Mr. Tucker that it is possible for the public
to be permitted input at the site review meeting if the ordinance is amended. Also
she said that it is important that a sign be posted in order that everyone - Commission
member or public - will be able to locate the property.
Mrs. Graves questioned Mrs.Schatz about the membership on the city's technical
committee.
Mrs.Schatz replied that there is a staff member from the planning, zoning,
highway, and traffic departments. She also stated that there are no outside people
on this committee, only city employees.
Mr. Keeler asked if many of the plans are appealed. Mrs.Schatz replied that
"very, very few are appealed."
Mr. Easter asked if it would be possible for the staff to post the sign.
Mr. Tucker said that it would be possible; he noted that at this time
the ordinance does not require that a sign be posted for subdivisions and site plans.
Mr. Keeler also pointed out that no signing is required for a rezoning or
special use permit - the state code has been amended and no longer requires this.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if the amendments are adopted, it might be a good
rrr idea to move the technical review meeting back a week in order that the staff would
have more preparation time. He said that he has no doubts that the staff will get
everything the ordinance requires. At this point, since the staff has no authority,
the developer always waits for Commission review to "dicker" over the conditions.
Mr. Keeler noted for the record that each month the Clerk to the Board
publishes a list of items to be considered by the County in the coming month.
Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to see more language in the amendments
addressing general public notice and she said that she would like to see language
making the signs mandatory.
Mr. Easter said that he feels the signs are a good idea.
Col. Washington said that he wishes to address subdivisions. He said that
if the Commission approves a plat, the Highway Department must give access to a state
route regardless of sight distance.
Mr. Coburn said that is partially correct - that the Highway Department cannot
deny an individual a private entrance, but a commercial entrance ( serving more than
one lot or a commercial facility ) can be denied if there is inadequate sight distance.
Col. Washington said that the way it works now a lot is platted and then
the entrance is established. That affords no protection for the general public.
Mr. Payne said that there would be no problem changing the amendmentis to read
that each lot must have a safe entrance - he felt this would be an appropriate amendment
even to the existing wording.
Mr. Wallace Reed noted that the Commission can design the standards under which
it wishes the County staff to operate and leave it up to the staff to require them.
Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission will have to be careful to back the
staff when items are appealed.
Mr. McCann said that he is not aware that the Commission deletes conditions
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Easter said that the Commission should look at long range planning and
the staff should be responsible for short range planning and policing the short
range. He said that it is an insult to the staff's intelligence the way things operate
now and soon it will be impossible to keep good people in the County's planning departmen
if things continue in the same fashion.
Mr. Huffman pointed out that it is seldom that the Commission does not follow
the staff's recommendations.
Mrs. Graves said that prior to relinquishing any controls, the Commission
should see a check list of what is to be required and make it an amendment to the
ordinance.
Col. Washington said that he is not so concerned about site plans being
approved administratively, however he pointed out that a subdivision in a rural area
se
is a major land,cnange with a greater impact that a site plan in an urban area.
Mr. Payne said that there are areas in the Zoning Ordinance that need
addressing - however he said that it makes no difference who administers them:
the staff or the Commission. The standards that are set will have to be required *100
by one or the other and cannot be waived.
rv�
Mrs. Diehl said that if the ordinance is amended, she would like a provision
for review of the amendments in one year.
Mr. Easter said that he views everything in the ordinance as something that
can be changed if it doesn't work.
Col. Washington said that he would like to see this resolution address only
site plans.
Mrs. Graves said that she has some serious doubts that the Commission can
relinquish its review of subdivision plats. She asked that Mr. Payne give his
written opinion to her regarding this matter.
Mr. Payne said that there is no doubt that the Commission can relinquish its
review of subdivisions, and noted that he has discussed this with her in the past.
He quoted the section of the State Code that is applicable. Mrs. Graves again
requested the written opinion from Mr. Payne.
Mr. McCann moved that the Commission resolve to amend the ordinance to
provide for administrative approval of site plans and subdivisions.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with
Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves, and Col. Washington dissenting.
Mrs. Diehl said she could not support the motion in view of the fact
that she feels these should be addressed separately.
With no further discussion, the Commission adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
M
19