Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 22 83 PC MinutesFebruary 22, 1983 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Tuesday, February 22, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning and Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mrs. Norma Diehl and Ms. Ellen V. Nash, ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Per. Tucker noted that there are four different points of interest which the staff would like input on from the Commission: 1) report on streamlining regulations and application review process; 2) discussion of table of contents for proposed revision of Subdivision Ordinance; 3) discussion of private road provisions of subdivision regulations; 4) update on borrow area study. REPORT ON STREAMLINING REGULATIONS AND APPLICATION PROCESS: Ms. Caperton briefly outlined the report "'Streamlining' Methods for Albemarle County," noting that this information was prepared from the American Planning Association publication entitled Streamlining Land Use Regulations: A Guidebook for Local Governments. She noted the following points which she felt the Commission would be most interested in: 1) Use of handouts, manuals registers, and other written materials 2) Holding informal preapplication meetings 3) Reorganization or revisions of ordinances 4) Elimination of duplicate hearings 5) Improvement of application forms 6) Use of a hearing official (or equivalent position) 7) Simultaneous processing or review of permits 8) "Fast tract" processing of minor applications 9) Use of computer in some phase of processing 10) Institution of more project review deadlines 11) Holding more frequent Commission meetings to improve regulatory process 12) Improvement of citizen input procedures 13) Staff training programs 14) Training for Commissioners 15) Revamping of recordkeeping procedures. Ms. Caperton stated that it has been suggested that a "how-to" manual be prepared to give to potential applicants and citizens. She stated that while staff agrees with this in concept the review process is to variable and complex to put in writing. She noted, however, that a general procedural outline for site plans and sub- divisions has been prepared and is attached to the streamlining report. Ms. Caperton stated that she felt it would be beneficial to require preliminary conferences with applicants to review their proposed site plan or subdivision. She pointed out that she has prepared a form (attached) which could be used for these conferences. The following are points that were outlined during the discussion: 1) Allow for administrative approval of certain types of applications such as subdivisions on a private road where no waivers are requested, and final plats when a preliminary plat has been approved. She noted that if administrative approval of this type was given to staff this would allow the Commission time for in depth planning such as the Capital Improvements Program, etc. 2) The Site Review Committee could be more active in their review of plans they receive. She noted that they have the power to defer a plan if they feel that more information isneeded. 3) As an alternative to administrative approval of plans a "hearing official" could be appointed to hear certain types of applications such as amendments to plans, mobile homes, special use permits, etc. 4) Changes could be made to the County's ordinances. Ms. Caperton reiterated that in her review she found that the procedure used by the Commission and staff is very expedient. In conclusion, Ms. Caperton noted the following recommendations and suggestions she felt should be further discussed: 1) Allow administrative review of certain types of site plans and subdivision approval 2) Appoint a "hearing official" to review and act on certain types of applications to free the Commission to review long term planning documents 3) Some very general handouts could be prepared giving basic procedural information to prospective applicants. 4) Require that a preliminary conference be held between the applicant and the staff prior to a final submittal. 5) Add a provision to the Zoning Ordinance allowing preliminary site plans to be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission. 6) Re -address the site review committee to give it the authority to make stronger recommendations on the site plans and subdivisions it reviews. 7) Obtain use of the computer to aid in the efficiency of routing applications and keeping the project status update. 8) Procedures for subdivision review should be added to Subdivison Ordinance. 9) Monitor variance and waiver requests to determine validity of provisions. Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission the site plan and subdivision review procedure used by the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker explained that if the staff were given the authority to approve minor site plans and subdivisions, (without having to bring them before the Commission) this would not cause additional work for the staff, since the standard process for reviewing these applications would not change. He felt that it would, in fact, be less work as it would save time on paper work, notification of adjacent owners, etc. Mr. Skove stated that he felt staff should be allowed to approve divisions on a private road. Mr. Davis ascertained that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that any division of land served by an easement must be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker stated that he felt one way of handling this would be for the staff to approve anything in the rural area that is allowed by right, and noted that anything in the urban area or communities could be presented to the Commission. Mr. Skove ascertained that if administrative approval of certain site plans and subdivisions were approved by staff, the notification procedure for adjacent porperty owners would be similiar to that of the mobile home permits. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that each Commissioner would continue to receive copies of plats or site plans in their district. Mr. Skove stated his concern regarding the granting of waivers and variances. Mr. Tucker stated that as he understands it, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that by law you are not permitted to give waivers of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Cogan stated that he felt staff is capable of determining whether a site plan or subdivision should be approved administratively or presented to the Commission for their review. Mr. Bowerman stated his concern regarding notification of adjacent property owners of major site plans or subdivisions. Mr. Tucker explained that there is a display ad each month listing site plans and subdivisions that have been submitted. He also noted that the notification could be handled in the same manner as that of the mobile homes where the adjacent owner is given a time limit in which to submit written objections. Mr. Bowerman stated that one of the criteria for "streamlining" could be that anything that deals with bonus provisions, runoff in the urban area, etc., should be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Tucker stated that staff currently cannot approve any division on a state road in the urban area or communities. Mr. Skove asked how the Commission could grant more authority to the Site Review Committee. Ms. Caperton noted that applicants, in order to meet the deadline for submittal, will submit incomplete plans. She noted that if the Site Review Committee would, when necessary, recommend deferral of these plans until the necessary information is submitted then preliminary approval could be granted. Mr. Bowerman asked if a plan could be accepted "tentatively" in order to meet the deadline, if all the necessary information in not available then staff would not accept it. Mr. Tucker stated that this might work if enforced by the Planning Commission and all the land surveyors were notified of this action. Mr. Cogan noted the advantages for a preliminary conference with the applicant. Mr. Bowerman thanked the staff for presenting this report and noted that the Commission would like some criteria outlined for the various 140 procedural changes and presented to the Commission. (COPY OF REPORT ATTACHED) DISCUSSION OF TALBE OF CONTENTS FOR PROPOSED REVISION OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: Mr. Keeler noted that staff is working toward providing a more organized, streamlined and readable ordinance. At this time, it is envisioned that substantive changes would be in two categories. The first category would be technical changes, primarily to update standards, resulting from recommendations of Site Review Committee members. This category would also include changes e-eded to bring the ordinance into consistency with the Code of Virginia, Zoning Ordinance and the like. Since these would be changes of a techni- -Cal nature, we would like to seek comment from the local surveyors' association officers prior to presentation to the Commission. Simultaneously, we would be working with the Commission on the second category, which would be policy and procedure changes deemed appropriate by the Commission. This could include such topics as: private roads, streamlining approval procedures, and whether or not to include such provisions as review by the Site Review Committee, notification of adjoining property owners and the like, which are presently done as "policy." An outline of a proposed reorganization, which will provide a better structure by separating technical requirements from procedures and administration is attached. Staff proposes to proceed through the review process in the chronology of the outline, presenting each article individually for Commission review. (Copy of outline is attached). Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the review process as outlined by staff would make the Subdivision Ordinance more readable and in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker stated that if action were taken to amend the ordinance a public hearing would be held. He noted that he felt it would benefit the Commission to review each article individually. DISCUSSION OF PRIVATE ROAD PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: 14r. Tucker stated that staff would like input from the Commission regarding private roads. He noted the following concerns: 1) are private roads a valid provision in the Subdivision Ordinance; 2) the lot size is required to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, does this present a problem; 3) specifications, such as minimum size of lots, etc. Mr. Tucker asked for clarification from the Commission regarding these concerns and any others that they might have. Mr. Tucker stated that when the private road ordinance was originally reviewed it was to allow for large lot developments. He noted that no minimum lot size for large scale developments was established. Mr. Cogan stated that he felt private roads served a purpose and should continue to be allowed. He noted the following waivers which are requested frequently on private roads: 1) the lot size does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan 2) lack of existing right-of-way to make the necessary road improvements 3) minimum increased use of the road. Mr. Cogan stated that he would like to avoid granting waivers, noting that he felt the Commission should work with the staff on their proposal of a minimum lot size. Mr. Tucker explained that a maintenance agreement could be required for new subdivisions, but it its an existing private road or easement you can not require people to take part in a maintenance agreement. Per. Davis asked if a condition could be added to the private road ordinance stating "one lot can be added on private roads, one division per lot." Mr. Skove stated that if private roads were not allowed this would encourage strip development. Mr. Cogan stated that private roads should be allowed and noted the following criteria: 1) establish a minimum lot size for private roads; 2) establish that if one or two lots are added to an existing private private road, this would not necessitate the upgrading of the road. Mr. Michel stated that he felt the standards for private roads should be addressed. Mr. Bowerman asked if a sliding scale would be beneficial to determine the number of lots versus the lot size in terms of prime and double seal. Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission might consider adding a provision that would reduce the standard subject to the length of the road. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that one to ten lots could be approved by the County Engineer, taking into consideration topography, right- of-way, etc. Mr. Tucker noted that private roads allow some land to be developed that could not be developed if state roads were required. Mr. Davis pointed out reasons why a private road is not beneficial. Mr. Tucker stated that he felt that there should be provision for private roads in the urban area for certain types of development. UPDATE ON BORROW AREA STUDY: Mr. Keeler noted that staff is considering a recommendation to permit activities involving less than 50,000 cubic yards of material as a use by right in the RA district, subject to supplementary regulations. These supplementary regulations (see attached proposed Section 5.1.28) are intended to insure that such activity is conducted consistent with the public interest. Borrow activities in excess of 50,000 cubin yards would require NR overlay zoning or special use permit. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the supplementary regulagions, Section 5.1.28 would apply to borrow fill or waste areas between 10,000 cubic yards and 50,000 cubic yards, anything over the 50,000 cubic yards would require a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman asked if this met with the approval of the highway department. Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Coburn, representing Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, stated in his letter that "this appears to be a reasonable approach so far as the department is concerned. It is our understanding that the County Engineer can approve agreements with the highway department and its contractors for borrow/waste areas needed for highway construction. I believe the departments requirements of its contractors covering these areas to run parallel to the intent of the County's ordinance." Mr. Keeler stated that he did not feel there would be very many requests for borrow areas, other than highway projects. Mr. Bowerman asked how the 50,000 cubic yards figure was obtained. Mr. Tucker stated that this figure was reached after working with the highway department and others who felt this would not create any major problems. Mr. Bowerman noted that the definition of a borrow pit has been established and supplementary regulations regarding runoff, seeding, etc. also established to govern the use of the borrow pit. Mr. Michel asked how would one monitor the removal of dirt from two or three parcels. Mr. Keeler noted that "a copy of the plan showing areas of borrow, fill and/or waste activity and the extent thereof shall be filed by the applicant with the local office of the Virginia Department of Health including a description of fill and waste materials." He pointed out that the Department of Solid and Hazzard Waste would be notified instead of the local Health Department. Mr. Keeler stated the following definition of a borrow pit "location at which soil and other related material is removed from one site to another." Mr. Bowerman asked how the 10,000 and 50,000 cubic yard figures were obtained. Mr. Keeler explained that the 10,000 figure was just an arbitrary figure, the 50,000 figure was one that met with the approval of the highway department. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the staff would prepare a special use permit showing requirements regarding borrow pits and then present the Commission with a resolution of intent. OR Ropert W. Tucker, Jr:j- tary