HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 14 78 PC Minutes/D =)
November 14, 1978
�rrr The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
November 14, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William
Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr.James L. Huffman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Norma Diehl; and
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker,
Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
order.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
Minutes of October 24, 1978, were approved by the chairman as submitted.
Minutes of October 31, 1978, were approved with Mrs. Graves ascertaining
that she had requested Mr. Payne's written comments on the legality of the Commission's
relinquishing approval of subdivision plats.
Conditional ( "Proffered" ) Zoning - Amendments to Section 14 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
Mr. Tucker noted that he had included in the packet for that weeks meeting
information from VPI regarding conditional zoning. The format was in the form
err of questions and answers, some of the questions which had been raised by the Commission
at the previous meeting. He stated that the staff contends this will be a good
planning tool for the County and for property owners in the County, and therefore
he supported the proposed amendments.
Mr. Rotgin said that he feels the intent is good but is concerned about fair
and equal treatment for all concerned.
Mr. Easter pointed out the flexibility the amendments would afford.
Mr. Rotgin suggested that one alternative could be a graded breakdown in the
zoning ordinance.
Since there was no further comment, Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he could support the amendments as long as the proffer
is offered only by the applicant and the Planning Commission does not have the power
to bargain with the applicant. He said that in his opinion this position is not
desirable for the Commission, however he did state that he feels the Board has
the power to bargain.
Mr. Payne said the amendments are written such that the applicant makes
the proffer, and it can even be made after Planning Commission action ( prior to the
Board meeting ). However, Mr. Payne felt it would be in order for the Commission
to suggest a proffer but not foist it off.
Col. Washington noted that if the applicant agrees with a proffer suggested
by the Planning Commissionithe Commission should and could act on the the proffer,
even with modifications.
Mrs. Diehl arrived at the meeting.
Mr. Payne agreed that if the developer agrees with the Planning
Commission he can amend his proffer. However, stipulations cannot be placed
upon the developer without his agreement. The Commission also has the liberty
of saying that it would recommend approval of a rezoning if the proffer were
"such and such."
Col. Washington noted that in his opinion there is such a thing as
reasonable negotiation.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the impetus for the proffer could even come
from adjoining property owners, noting that this way the proffer could be used in
the spirit of compromise.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if this is the case he questioned how it would be
possible to fairly negotiate. Furthermore, since the proffer goes with the land,
it is the Board who should have the discretion to bargain, not the Commission and
the adjoining property owners.
Dr. Moore said that he does not feel this tool will change circumstances
that much due to the limitation of the kinds of proffers that can be made.
Mr. Easter said that this is true and noted that the Commission in the past
has compromised with developers, and the developers and the county are both better
off for the compromises. Also he noted that in the past rezonings have been denied
due to a broad possibility of uses. He said that he does not see these amendments
as a panacea however does feel they will be useful.
Mr. McCann said that he feels most of the discussions regarding the proffers
will take place prior to the Commission level of review. He said that he does not
know what impact these amendments will have, however does anticipate it will increase
the staff workload.
Mr. Huffman said there is no doubt they will add to the workload of the Zoning
Administrator. He said that he fears the possiblity of "arm twisting". He said that
he feels proffers should be made prior to the Commission review to off -set this
possibility.
Mrs. Diehl said that the uses must be limited to those things the applicant
is willing to proffer.
Mrs. Graves noted that it will not be possible to legislate the fashion in
which an applicant applies) for a rezoning. Furthermore, she noted that many things
change prior to the Board of Supervisors review of items.
Mr. McCann said that if the uses are limited, a problem could arise if a
business fails, since it would necessitate another petition before the County.
He said that he really prefers to act on straight rezonings.
Dr. Moore asked if these amendments restrict the Commission more than it is
currently restricted.
Mr. Payne replied that this is just another type of rezoning, only with
more latitude. He read from the state statute the kinds of conditions that can
be proffered.
Mrs. Graves moved approval of the following amendments:
%D`-3
14-5 CONDITIONAL ZONING
14-5-1 Prior to any public hearing before the governing body, any applicant
for rezoning may voluntarily proffer, in writing, reasonable conditions
to be applied to such rezoning as part thereof. Such conditions shall
comply with the provisions of Section 15.1-491.2 of the Code; provided
that the proffering thereof by the applicant shall be deemed prima
facie evidence of such compliance.
14-5-2 Upon the approval of any such rezoning, all conditions so proffered and
accepted by the Board of Supervisors shall be deemed a part thereof and
non -severable therefrom and shall remain in force until amended or varied
by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 15.1-491.6 of the
Code. All such conditions shall be in addition to the regulations
provided for the district by the ordinance.
14-5-3 Each such rezoning shall be designated on the official zoning map by an
appropriate symbol designed by the zoning administrator. In addition, the
zoning administrator shall keep and maintain the conditional zoning index
which shall provide ready access to the ordinance creating such conditions.
14-5-4 The zoning administrator shall be vested with all necessary authority on
behalf of the governing body of the county to administer and enforce conditions
attached to a rezoning including the ordering in writing of the remedy of
any non-compliance with such conditions and the bringing of legal action for
injunction, abatement or other appropriate action or proceeding. In addition,
the zoning administrator shall require a guarantee, satisfactory to the
governing body, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the
construction of any physical improvements required by the condition, or
a contract for the construction of such improvements and the contractors
guarantee in a like amount and so conditioned, which guarantee in a like
amount and so conditioned, which guarantee shall be reduced or released
by the governing body, or agent thereof, upon the submission of satisfactory
evidence that construction of such improvements has been completed in whole
or in part; provided, furhter, that failure to meet all conditions shall
constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required use, occupancy
or building permits as may be appropriate. Subject to the approval of the
zoning administrator in a particular case, the applicant may provide a
single guarantee in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the
completion of all improvements required by this section, by Section 11-2 of
this ordinance and/or by Section 18-19 of the County Code.
14-5-5 Any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the zoning administrator in the
administration or enforcement of this section may petition, the governing
body for the review of the decision of the zoning administrator by written
petition filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors not more than
10 days after such decision.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion for approval, which carried by a vote of
8-1, with Mr. Huffman dissenting.
09
/ 0(
Amendments to Section 18-22 of County Code and Section 17-5-13
of Zoning Ordinance regarding performance standards for off -site
and on -site drainage facilities:
Mr. Keeler noted for the Commission the changes in the amendments
since the previous presentation. He also noted that the.staff had received
a letter from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders'Association, but would waive reading
it in view of the fact that Mr. Rotgin was present to dicuss items of concern.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if single-family residences would be exempt
from these amendments. Mr. Keeler replied that they would not be exempt in all
cases.
Mr. Rotgin questioned the exemption of long driveways to single-family
residences. Mr. Keeler said they would be exempt if they are impervious.
Mr. Rotgin then stated that he feels these amendments are majory surgery
for what actually requires a banda4d. He asked that the Commission further define
"adverse impact". He also questioned what constitutes damage or effect on downstream
properties. He requested that item #2 under the amendments address only existing
parcels. With these areas clarified he said the Homebuilders' Association could
support the amendments, though they are unnecessary.
Mr. Jim Hill questioned the purpose of the amendments, and noted they will
certainly decrease the value of property in the county. He said that individual
property rights will certainly now be controlled by only a very few people.
Mr. Easter noted the letter from the League of Women Voters that was
being circulated among the Commission members and asked that it be made part
of the appropriate file.
Dr. Moore asked if any attention was paid to having impervious cover
a certain proportion of the entire parcel. Mr. Tucker replied that he preferred that Mr.
Bailey address that comment, however he feels that it stands to reason that the more impervious
cover there is, the more runoff there is going to be and therefore Mr. Bailey probably prefers to
deal with actual figures as opposed to a ratio.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves said that she feels it important to note that it is possible
to have a large parcel with several small uses without the subdivision of that
parcel and have a large cumulative effect downstream.
Mr. Gloeckner felt it necessary to define "detrimental downstream" - questioning
if it is erosion, flooding, increased flow, or all of them.
Mr. Keeler said that the rate of runoff from a 10 Year storm is what is addressed
in the amendments.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if that is the case the amendments are addressing
the rate of runoff in a certain time period. He felt that this could be handled
with pipe sizing.
Mr. Tucker stated that the problem is that in some cases downstream pipes
are not large enough.
9
Col. Washington said that piping size is certainly essential. He said
that he does not feel that the problem is confined to the urban area - it is
certainly applicable to the Crozet area. He noted that the cumulative effect
can be tremendous.
Mr. McCann said that perhaps the County should consider one large area
for an impoundment.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the ordinance will apply to the Highway Department
and the University of Virginia. Mr. Payne replied that it will not.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the interstate highway system certainly is a
big contributor of run-off.
Mr. Tucker said that these amendments are much more definitive than
the current wording of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Graves questioned if 5000' or moreexclude very many streams.
Mr. Tucker replied that it is the opinion of the County Engineer that this
will cover the problems the county faces.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that this will cover the drainage basins of the
streams and thus pick up the smaller streams.
Mr. Goode Love felt that these amendments create problems rather than solve
them.
Mrs. Diehl noted her support for what she felt a comprehensive tool.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels he will have to abstain from the vote
since this directly affects his business.
Mr. Vest said that he supported the amendments since all county taxpayers
should not have to pay the cost brought on by a few.
Mr. McCann said that he would not support the amendments because there are
too many unanswered questions at this point.
Mr. Easter noted his concern for some of the questions raised during the
public hearing, however said that his faith in the County Engineer's study guides
him to support the amendments. He then questioned if there is a way for a study
to be made to point out the areas where there should be concern.
Mr. Tucker said that the County Engineer's study addressed the current
problem areas and the study anticipates further problem areas.
Mrs. Graves moved that Section 18-22 of the County Code and Article
17 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended in the following fashion:
M
Section 17-5-13 - ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
(a) Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface water runoff
from the site, including such on -site and off -site drainage facilities
as the Commission, upon the recommendation of the County Engineer, may
deem adequate. Except as the Commission may otherwise require in a
particular case or as expressly provided herein, such facilities shall
be so designed and installed that the rate of surface water runoff from the
site, due to a rainfall of a 10-year return period intensity as shown on
the Frequency Analysis Curve for Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be no
greater after the proposed development than before; provided that the
same may be accomplished withcut unreasonable adverse impact on the
environment of the site. The second sentence of this sub -section shall
apply only within the geographic limits as hereinafter described: the
drainage basins of Moores Creek, Meadow Creek, Powell Creek, Redbud Creek,
Town Branch and those un-named branches, whether perennial or intermittent,
5,000 feet or greater in length, which flow directly into the Rivanna
River from either side, beginning at the crossing of U. S. Route 29 over the
South Fork of the Rivanna River, thence with the South Fork to its confluence
with the North Fork of the Rivanna and thence downstream with the Rivanna
River to its confluence with Moores Creek; all as shown on maps published
by the United States Geological Survey entitled "Charlottesville East, Virginia,"
"Charlottesville West, Virginia," "Earlysville, Virginia," "Simeon, Virginia,"
and "Alberene, Virginia." Witiin the geographic area hereinabove described,
the second sentence of this su)-section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Lands which are designate] as lying within the flood plain of any stream
in accordance with Articl-: 9A of this ordinance;
(2) The development of any lot or parcel of record at the date of the
adoption of this section, as amended, which results in a total impervious
surface coverage of not greater than 20,000 square feet;
(3) Any development, the final site plan and/or subdivision plat of which
has been approved by the commission prior to the adoption of this
section, as amended; and
(4) In any case where the developer shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction
of the County Engineer and the Commission that off -site improvements or other
provisions for the dispos tion of surface water run-off would equally or
better serve the public interest and safety; and that such method of
disposition woul& not adversely affect downstream properties.
(b) In addition, provisions shall tie made for the minimization of pollution of
all downstream water courses die to surface water runoff.
AND
Section 18-22 Flood Control and Drainage Structures.
The subdivider shall provide all information needed to determine what improve-
ments are necessary to provide adequate drainage, including contour maps, drainage
plans, and flood control devices. Contour intervals shall be not greater than five
feet and shall be at such lesser intervals as specified by the agent. Provisions
shall be made for the disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including
such on -site and off -site drainage facilities as the Commission, upon the recommend-
ation of the County Engineer, may deem adequate. Except as the Commission may
otherwise require in a particular case, or as expressly provided herein, such
facilities shall be so designed and installed that the rate of surface water
runoff from the site due to a rainfall of a 10-year return period intensity as
shown on the Frequency Analysis Curve for Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be
no greater after the proposed development than before; provided that the same may be
accomplished without unreasonable adverse impact on the environment of the site.
The fourth sentence of this section shall apply only within the geographic limits
as hereinafter described: the drainage basins of Moores Creek, Meadow Creek,
Powell Creek, Redbud Creek, Town Branch and those un-named branches, whether
perennial or intermittent, 5,000 feet or greater in length, which flow directly
into the Rivanna River from either side beginning at the crossing of U. S. Route 29
over the South Fork of the Rivanna and thence downstream with the Rivanna River to
its confluence with Moores Creek; all as shown on maps published by the United
States Geological Survey entitled "Charlottesville East, Virginia," "Charlottesville
West, Virginia," "Earlysville, Virginia," "Simeon, Virginia" and "Alberene, Virginia."
Within the geographic area hereinabove described, the fourth sentence of this
section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Lands which are designated as lying within the flood plain of any stream
in accordance with Article 9A of this ordinance;
(2) The development of any lot or parcel of record at the date of the
adoption of this section, as amended, which results in a total impervious surface
coverage of not greaterthan 20,000 square feet;
(3) Any development, the final site plan and/or subdivision plat of which has
been approved by the Commission prior to the adoption of this section, as amended; and
(4) In any case where the subdivider shall demonstrate to the reasonable
satisfaction of the County Engineer and the Commission that off -site improvements or
other provisions for the disposition of surface water run-off would equally or better
serve the public interest and safety; and that such method of disposition would not
adversely affect downstream properties.
In addition, provisions shall be made for the minimization of pollution of all
downstream water courses due to surface water runoff. The subdivider shall also provide
any other information required by the Board of Supervisors, its agent, or the Highway
Engineer.
The motion to approve the amendments was seconded by Mrs. Diehl. It carried
by a vote of 7-1-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting and Mr. Gloeckner abstaining.
Mr. Rotgin asked that prior to the Board meeting that the staff clarify and
outline what is meant by "adverse impact on environment" and "detrimental effect
downstream."
Mr. Easter asked that the staff do this.
M
ZMA-78-16. Walter H.
Supervisors to rezone
Residential. Property
and is adjacent on the
Map 55, Parcels 65 and
Withers, Jr., has petitioned the Board of
17.4 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RS-1
is located on the east side of Route 691
northeast to Orchard Acres. County Tax
66B., White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the letter from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation. He stated that the staff supports the
rezoning request for the following reasons:
I. The request complies with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. Public water is available in the area;
3. Similar development exists in the area.
Mr. Withers confirmed that the majority of the land is in orchard and the
remainder is a cornfield. He stated that he has worked with the Highway Department
regarding the road.
There was no public comment and Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Col. Washington questioned if the tract of land is larger than the 17.4 acres.
Mr. Withers replied that the 17 acres is being divided from 75 acres. He said that
he himself lives on the large residue.
Col. Washington established that public water fronts the property.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the rezoning request. The motion, seconded
by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
WORK SESSION - Historic District Amendments:
Mr. Keeler reported that the text, along with comments from KDA,
were mailed to the Commission a few weeks ago. The staff noted that it has not
completed work on the text, however at this time some of the areas of concern
are 21-3-2, 21-3-3, 21-3-5, all of 21-4, 21-5-2, all of 21-6, and all of 21-8.
He stated that the text is not really before the Commission and that Mr. Dorrier
is present to discuss the work of the Historic Committee with the Commission.
Mr. Dorrier informed the Commission that the committee has been working
on the text approximately eight months. Ordinances from other parts of the state
have been obtained for study in the preparation of these amendments. He said that
at this point the amendments under consideration are very similar to the Historic
District under the old proposed zoning ordinance reviewed by the County two years ago.
He stated that the intent of the amendments is to preserve the historic landmarks.
Stating that this is an overlay zone, Mr. Dorrier advised the public and Commission
that there is no intent to take away property rights. The Historic District Committee
would like Commission comments in order to react to those comments and make any
adjustments in the ordinance that is necessary. He noted the survey of various
properties in the county with some historic significance and said that at this point
70 landowners out of approximately 170 have responded to the questionnaire. He
said that alpproximately 65% of those: responding seem to support some sort
of preservation.
Upon questioning from the Commission, Mr. Payne said that this type of
zoning can be instigated by the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission,
the Board of Supervisors, or the landowner.
Mr. McCann said that upon several readings of the ordinance he feels property
rights are being taken unless the zoning is voluntary.
Mr. Dorrier briefly explained the intent of the ordinance, noting that it
is important to preserve as much of the County's heritage as possible.
Mr. Huffman said that he hopes this zoning is voluntary, just like the
State Historic Landmark Designation. This would permit the zoning to be removed
at a later date if the property owner so desires.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the maintenance and rehabilitation costs and who
is responsible. Mr. Payne said that the landowner is responsible.
Mr. Goode Love questioned if scenic vistas are considered historic sites.
Mr. Dorrier said that this had not been considered in the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is interested in finding out the procedure for
dealing with the amendments if they are adopted. Mr. Payne advised that procedurally
they will be handled as a zoning matter.
The Commission as a whole noted its concern on the initial designation
and who will instigate it.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the flood plain ordinance and the scenic highway
ordinance are analogous overlay zones adopted after the zoning ordinance and zoning
map.
Mr. Easter asked if the amendments could be worded in such fashion that only
the property owner could instigate the rezoning.
Mr. Payne said that this is not possible.
Fir. McCann said that if the designation is not voluntary he could not support
the amendments.
Mr. Huffman said that with the State Historic Designation a site or structure
can be designated only if it meets the criteria for historical significance and the
site or structure can be removed from the registry any time by the property owner.
Mrs. Diehl said that she favors making the zoning less restrictive and
involuntary, noting that if voluntary not many individuals willthen seek the class-
ification. She also stated a desire to see ordinances from other areas of the state.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that if adopted as presented in the current text,
it could be possible that the county would let history stand in the way of progress.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the ordinance is not intended to stop growth and
development - the intent is to preserve and enhance.
Mr. Gloeckner said that in his opinion adjoining property owners should
not be affected by the historical significance of a neighbor's property. He noted
that often one sees log cabins and other dwellings of historical significance beside
a skyscraper in large cities. He also noted concern for the enforcement cost that
the county will have to absorb.
Mr. Payne replied to the latter remark that the ordinance is
designed not to establish a separate administrative staff.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Commission's main concerns deal with mandatory
requirements and the maintenance aspect.
Mrs. Grbves noted that the maintenance aspect is very frightening to many
people.
Mr. McCann noted his concern for more and more restrictions on the people
of Albemarle County.
Mr. Dorrier said that the Historic Committee will present to the Planning
Commission something the Committee can support.
There were no further comments from the Commission or the public.
WORK SESSION- Private roads - existing easements vs new private roads:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff has made a
preliminary review of subdivisions involving private roads. No waivers have
been granted in the case of new roads, and for existing roads, waivers appear
infrequent. He stated that under the private roads provisions, staff opinion
is that requirements have been more consistent and that waivers have been granted
only when justified. He noted areas of concern the Commission should consider
in making a decision on the matter:
1. Under the private roads provisions, while some requirements have been waived,
other requirements are met. The applicant can be required to demonstrate the
need for waiver;
2. The private roads provisions appear to be adequate; waivers have been infrequent;
3. To create a provision to cover all situations which may arise on existing roads
would be difficult and basically guesswork at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he had requested this work session since it seemed
at one time there was a trend for subdivisions with one or two lots where it was unfair
to apply the private road requirements.
Mr. Easter said that the maintenance agreement with the word "lien" was what
had created the problem.
Mr. Lindstrom said that another thing that has been waived is upgrading the
standards of the existing road, especially where people along the road are perfectly
happy with the condition of the road as is.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels the standards are fine the way they are
now, and that some distinction has to be made between the old and the new. Further-
more, he said that the County has to consider each case on an individual basis.
9
//,3
Mr. McCann agreed, adding that when a hardship comes up, the county needs
to consider that particular hardship.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if the Commission is weakening the ordinance with the
granting of waivers.
Mr. Payne said that to date he does not feel the Commission has weakened the
ordinance. What has been done is appropriate to the hardship clause.
There was a consensus of the Commission that the rules and regulations
under which they have been operating are adequate.
Amendment to Granger Motor Company Site Plan:
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that this amendment involves the shift
of the building and the relocation of two parking spaces.
Mr. Tucker stated that these small items are generally caught by the zoning
inspector or the zoning administrator when the permanent certificate of occupancy
is sought. 41
Mr. McCann moved approval of the site plan amendment. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Gloeckner, and carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mrs. Graves noted that her dissent was based on the fact that the zoning ordinance
requires that the applicant be present for such amendments and neither the applicant
nor his representative is present.
Grassmere Final Plat Amendment:
Mr. Keeler said that the roadhas been relocated and the shift has caused
a change in the lot size. The density remains the same as does the number of lots.
Mrs. Graves questioned the width of the road. Mr. Keeler replied that it
must meet the requirements of the private road standards.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the amendment as presented. The motion,
seconded by Mr. Vest, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Huntington Village Site Plan Amendment:
Mr. Keeler read into the record the letter from Mr. Tom Wyant, noting
that this is a request to shift the building in Block J by 2'4".
Mr. Easter questioned soil erosion problems with this property. Mr. Tucker
replied that the owner has been faithfully working with the zoning administrator
to resolve these problems.
IR
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the amendment as presented. Mr. McCann
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
New Business:
Col. Washington noted that there is no way for a handicapped person arriving
in a wheel chair to enter the County Courthouse or the County Office Building without
being carried into the building. He said that he does not want to destroy the effect
of either building, however wishes this problem would be brought to the attention of
the Board of Supervisors in order that they can make the proper arrangements to
rectify this problem.
Mr. Lindstrom advised the Commission that he would bring this to the attention
of the entire Board the following day.
With no further business, the CommisX—ipn adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
v- v v -l�
rt W. Tucker, . - Se ret
F!
9