HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 21 83 PC MinutesJune 21, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, June 21, 1983 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman, Mr. Richard
Cogan, Vice -Chairman, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Mr. Tim Michel, and Mr.
Allen Kindrick. Also present were Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner
Mr. John Massie and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent from the meeting were Mr. James R. Skove and Mr. Corwith
Davis, Jr.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called
the meeting to order.
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Projects - proposed by the County
Education Department.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out for the benefit of the public, that the
Commission is dealing only with that portion of the CIP that pertains
to the Education Department's request. He noted that the Board
of Supervisors will review the CIP and receive comments from the
public on July 6, 1983.
Mr. Mabe noted the following projects submitted for review (attached
project sheets shows the project category and description of each
request).
1. Miscellaneous Repairs
2. Planning Funds
3. Energy Conservation
4. Henley, Re -roofing and Masonry Repairs
5. Western Albemarle High School Roof Drain Repair
6. Broadus Wood Addition & Remodeling
7. Albemarle High School Renovation IV
8. Brownsville Re -roofing & Masonry Repair
9. Western Albemarle High School Emergency Power System
10. Red Hill Pod Re -roofing
11. Greer Roof Replacement
12. Albemarle High School Cafeteria Repair
13. Hollymead Roof Repair
14. Hollymead
/9 9
Mr. Mabe pointed out that additional funding has been obtained
for the Henley re -roofing and masonry repairs project (#4),
therefore, the request for this project is $200,000 for completion.
Mr. David Papenfuse, representing the Education Department, noted
that with regard to project #2 (Planning Funds) their intention is
to provide facilities at each school which will provide equal
opportunities to all students. He noted that they plan to do a
study of the existing buildings to determine what facilities are
available, the size of the classrooms, cafeteria, gym,etc.
He also pointed out that they would like to engage a consultant
to determine how they can upgrade the telephone systems.
Mr. Bowerman asked if its been possible to determine the amount
of savings since the energy control measures have been established.
Mr. John Massie stated that in the five schools which are totally
electric, the rate of usage has decreased by 30%. He pointed out
that temperature controls have been installed, light bulbs, etc.
Mr. Bowerman asked how long will the energy conservation request
be necessary.
Mr. Massie stated that if a centralized computer control is
established, he believes that within a year or two the system
will pay for itself. He pointed out that maintenance money will
still be required.
Mr. Mabe ascertained that money for maintenance would be an
operating expenditure.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the roofing jobs are bid as a unit,
rather than individually.
Mr. Cogan ascertained tha warranties are given for the roof repairs.
(Ten years for the material itself, and repairs done for a certain
period of time.)
Mr. Cogan questioned the need for a consultant to do a survey of
the telephone systems.
Mr. Pappenfuse explained that they would like to take advantage
of the existing equipment, therefore, they felt a consultant would
be beneficial.
Mr. Pappenfuse explained that it was evident during the redistricting
meetings, that there was no standard format as to what constituted
a classroom, therefore the need for a floor plan study is imperative.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that four of the schools have an
emergency generator.
Mr. Massie pointed out that the $40,000 request for project #9
(Western Albemarle High School Emergency Power System) will cover
the cost of the generator, elevator and stage curtains.
Mr. Bowerman stated that with project request such as the
emergency generator or Western Albemarle, he felt the cost to
complete the necessary improvement should be submitted with a
break down of the appropriation for the upcoming years.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she did not feel that miscellaneous repairs
should be included in the capital improvements program.
Mr. Mabe explained that the Board of Supervisors is asking the
Planning Commission to incorporate the projects submitted by the
Education Department in the capital improvements program and to
include the proposed ranking for each project.
Mr. Mabe pointed out that there appears to be adequate resources
to fund the projects proposed for 1983-84, noting that in the past
several projects have been allowed for but the appropriation was
never made.
Mrs. Diehl asked if projects such as the Henley re -roofing, which
has received literary funding, needed to be included in the capital
improvements program.
Mr. Mabe explained that each resource has be be considered. He
explained that money for projects will be taken from the local
fund, but will be replaced by other sources if literary funding
is obtained.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he can not support maintenance repairs
and/or consultant fees, financed through the capital improvements
program.
Mr. Cogan stated that he agrees with Mr. Kindrick that maintenance
repairs should be part of the operating budget and noted that he
would have to review a detailed breakdown before he could support
the need for consultants.
Mr. Pappenfuse stated that he would like the Commission to review
the maintenance projects one at a time, noting that it is a major
concern to the citizens of the County that the schools be kept in
repair.
Mr. Mabe explained that the Board of Supervisors requested that
miscallenous repairs be submitted on an annual basis, with an
itemized listing of each request.
Mr. Kindrick reiterated that he feels this should be in the
operating budget and stated that perhaps the "policy" should be
defined.
"4O/
Mr. Pappenfuse stated that putting non-occuring items in the
operating budget tends to inflate the budget.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt all the requests were legitimate
and noted that he could support the miscellaneous repairs but pointed
out that they could be ranked last in terms of priority.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the amount of funding needed for a consultant
o analyze the telephone systems. He pointed out that this could
be put out for bids.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to have some definitive
information submitted next year on energy savings.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Commission has concerns as to how
the projects are classified. He noted that perhaps next year
more information could be submitted giving justification for each
request.
Mr. Bowerman noted that it is the concensus of the Commission to
remove item #7 (Planning Funds) from the June 21, 1983 capital
improvements budget and to recommend that this be funded in fiscal
year 1984-85.
Mrs. Diehl made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors
that the 1983-84 Capital Budget be funded, and suggested the
following ranking:
1. County Office Building -- Phase II
2. Court Square Complex
3. Hydraulic Road Improvements
4. Fire Department Advance Allocation
5. Henley Re -roofing and Masonry Repairs
6. Brownsville Re -roofing and Masonry Repairs
7. Western Albemarle Roof Drain Repair
8. Crozet Branch Library - Sewer
9. Albemarle High Renovation -- Phase IV
10. Joint Dispatch Center -- 911
11. Dry Hydrants -- East Rivanna, North Garden, Earlysville, Crozet
- Stony Point and Scottsville
16.
17. Central Library - Roof
18. Greenwood Community Center Heating Improvements
19. Energy Conservation
20. Property Acquisition/Obstruction Removal
21. Sand Spreader/Sweeper Equipment
22. Quick Dash Vehicle
23. Automated Weather System
24. Greenwood Community Center Site Improvements
25. Crozet Branch Library - Furnishings
26. Air Carrier Apron and North Taxiway
09
-:20P
27. Crozet School Field Stop Replacement
28. County Finance Security system
29. Fire Service Training Center
30. County Computer Upgrade
31. County Fire Engine
32. Miscellaneous Repairs.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Buxton -- Request in accordance with
Sections 30.5.5.2 and 30.3.5.2.1 to convert a concrete ford to a
low-water culvert bridge in floodway of Moormans River. County
Tax Map 25, parcel 18, White Hall Magisterial District, consisting
of 80.10 acres zoned Rural Areas, located in Sugar Hollow, on north
side of Route 614, approximately 6/10 mile west of its intersection
with Route 674.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Dr. Buxton stated that he does not agree with the staff report as
presented to the Commission. He stated that in order for canoes
to cross the ford the water has to be 2' - 3' above the ford and
pointed out that the ford was designed with this in mind. He also
noted that this section of the river is not a trout stream and
explained that the ford will not obstruct the passage of fish or other
aquatic life.
Dr. Buxton noted the terrain of the area and stated that a road
could not be built here because of flooding. He stated that the
scenic river designation, in his opinion, was not intended to
prevent safe and adequate access to property. He stated that
he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may
have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this has been the permanent home of the
Buxtons since May 1982.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Buxtons have an agreement with
the authorities at the dam, where in order to gain access to the
property, they will shut off the water flow for a certain period
of time.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that when this property was purchased in
1961 access to the property was obtained by driving through the
3
river bed and that the low water ford was built at a later date.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is unsure if the plan before the
Commission at this time is appropriate, pointing out that there
is nothing speaking to the passage of canoes as required by the
State Code. He stated that he felt in order to meet the
requirements of the Virginia Code there would have to be a draw
bridge or some type of opening, allowing the passage of any item
in the water.
Mr. Cogan stated that this is not a trout stream as trout cannot
live in this water. He stated that it is rare that a canoeist
will be this far upriver noting the rocks in the water, etc.,
pointing out that they usually enter at the confluence of the Doyle
and Moormans River. He stated therefore, that he did not feel
that the concern regarding canoeists was applicable.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the design of the ford could be
improved and noted that he felt the applicable ordinances should
be complied with.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not want to see this area inundated
with this type of crossing but noted that it was necessary at this
location because of the terrain. He also pointed out that if canoeist
did travel this far upstream they could cross the ford safely.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there are times when Rt. 674 is
flooded (for approximately half a day) and noted that access
to Sugar Hollow is closed because of flooding.
Dr. Buxton stated that there are not as many crossing as indicated
in the staff report, noting that there are only two to his knowledge.
Mr. Keeler stated that in regard to the crossings he counted
two unapproved crossings and one concrete ford crossing, also
noting that it was brought to his attention that there is a
third unapproved crossing in the area.
Mr. Michel stated that this section of the river is not a designated
trout stream and noted that this section of the river is not
suitable for canoeing.
Ms. Nash asked if the bridge complies with the requirements of
Section 62 of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could not discard the fact
that this section is used by canoeist. He noted that the Code of
Virginia as it applies to this situation is read in terms of
practicality. He explained that the statute states that "the
passage of boats, canoes and other floating vessels cannot be
obstructed." He noted that he interrupts "vessels" as those vessels
which are practicable to use on that section of the river.
PWJ
iA
Mrs. Buxton stated that they had explored the possibility of building
a bridge instead of the ford, but noted the cost involved.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Section 30.5.5.2 of the scenic area designation
requires positive finding by the Board of Supervisors by clear and
convincing evidence that such bridge or other structure is necessary
to prevent or eliminate a hazard to the life or property of any
resident of the county. He asked what the position of the Commission
would be in this case.
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission is recommending to the Board
of Supervisors if they should make this finding or not.
Mr. Keeler explained to the Commission that the following alternatives
could be explored:
• require a larger bridge to be built downstream;
• delete the scenic area designation on this segement of the stream.
Mr. Keeler noted that most of the property in this area is posted with
no public access. If the Commission decides the stream is not canoeable,
then its questionable as to whether this segement of the stream
should be designated as scenic area.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission would be setting a precedent if
they approved this application, noting her concern for the property
owner who does not have an existing dwelling but would like to
build a bridge.
Mr. Payne noted that Section 30.5.5.2, 6.b reads:
• "such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or
other structure is to be used, as to the sole means of access
to one or more existing, lawfully occupied dwellings."
Mr. Buxton stated that this river was not designated as a scenic
river when they purchased the property. He also noted that there
is no other access to the property other than the ford.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the ford would be concealed from public
view by the terrain of the area.
Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, noted that the pipes for the bridge would
not be in public view.
Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, stated that he has been
to the site and noted that there is high boulders in this area.
He also pointed out that the engineer who designed this ford is a
local conoeist and it is his opinion that the ford would not
obstruct the passage of fish or canoeist.
Mr. Michel stated that he has no objection to this request but
would like to be assured that the bridge would not impede the
passage of canoeists.
'p-05�,
Mr. Keeler explained to the Commission the requirements as outlined
in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she has no objection to this proposal but
pointed out that a means of alternative access should be explored.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that the staff was reluctant to ask the
Buxtons to spend money on engineering, etc., until the issue of
whether or not they have a reasonable use of the property without
the structure was resolved.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the requirements of Section 30.5.5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance items c and d should have been met prior to review
by the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated that the Commission could defer action on this until
a report was obtained from the engineer regarding the structure
of the bridge.
Mr. Keeler noted that this petition is scheduled to be reviewed by
the Board of Supervisors on July 6, 1983.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if this is the best structure that can be
designed to provide access to the property, then he can support
the request.
Mr. Keeler stated that if the fence remains in place downstream,
then he is uncertain if the questions as to whether or not this
bridge is passable is germane.
Mr. Cogan stated that he could support this petition and noted that
he feels that the ford will provide the best access to the property.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Buxton's house is located within
the floodplain, and that by permiting this access a non -conforming
structure is made more usable.
Mr. Elrod explained the design of the bridge as proposed by the
applicant to the Commission.
Mr. Cogan moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors, to
approve this petition subject to the following conditions:
1. County Engineer and Watershed Management Official approval of plans
and program of construction reflective of the Comprehensive Plan
standards for "rivers and streams" and "water supply watersheds;"
2. County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with
62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, if necessary;
ao(o
PM
3. County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity
in flood plain in accordance with 30.3 Floor Hazard Overlay
District of the Zoning Ordinance;
4. Approval of this petition shall not create liability on the part
of Albemarle County or any officer, agency, or employee thereof,
for any flood damage that results from reliance on this approval
of any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder;
5. Upstream signage warning of obstruction to be posted and
maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of
Planning;
6. Review and approval of all appropriate local, state, and federal
agencies;
7. Flagging on fence to reasonable satisfaction of the Director
of Planning.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-1 with
Mrs. Diehl dissenting.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support this petition as she
felt there was a lack of information submitted.
University Commons Final Plat - request for minor amendment on final
plat.
Ms. Caperton noted that the applicant would like to add a note on
the plat to designate the back area as convertible area and withdrawable
area. She explained that the purpose for this is that if the zoning
should change to permit a higher density or if they were allowed to
develop, this could be done without obtaining the approval of the
homeowners in the three existing buildings.
Mr. Payne explained that units are being created without physically
dividing the land. He further explained that the idea behind this
request is to build more buildings, creating more units, on a parcel
of land without involving the owners of the existing building.
Mr. Payne explained that this proposal would continue to be part
of the condominium project but would be subject to conversion/with-
drawal.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Wyant, representing the applicant, stated that he would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment.
.�2 6'1
Mrs. Joan Graves asked if the condominium owners would be notified
of the rezoning.
Mr. Payne stated that the condominium owners as well as the unit
owers would be notified of any rezoning.
Mr. Michel moved to approve the request to provide the following
note on the plat:
• Convertible and withdrawable area (1.9916 acres); any
subdivision of or construction on any part of this area is
not permitted at the time of recordation hereof due to
current subdivision and zoning restrictions.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
"Streamlining" the Site Review Process - Staff update.
Ms. Caperton stated that since the work session on this in January,
questionnairs were sent to the members of the site review committee
asking for their input and comments. She noted that it was pointed
out to the members of the committee that they could make more
detailed comments on the applications. She pointed out that the
site review committee made the following points:
• more information should be submitted in order for them to
make a more detailed review of the plans;
• a preliminary plat should be required or encouraged for major
subdivisions;
• if preliminary plats are not submitted then all the information
that would normally be required on a final plat should be sub -
mitt d (i.e., road plans, drainage plans)with the initial submittal
of pPlats.
TRs. Caperton explained that if the Commission agrees this "streamlining"
process could be tried as a policy requirement rather than a change
in the ordinance, to determine how it will work.
Ms. Caperton stated that in order to facilitate the review process
and to make it more efficient, the staff makes the following recommenda-
tions for adoption by the Commission and subsequently the Board
of Supervisors:
1) Preliminary subdivision plats should be encouraged and all
information required in Section 18-52 of the Subdivision
Ordinance must be on the plat or submitted in another manner.
This includes preliminary road and drainage plans.
M
2) The Commission should adopt a policy that requires an applicant
to submit all pertinent final plans and studies with a final
plat if a preliminary has not been submitted and approved. This
would include the submittal of final road and drainage plans, etc.
The staff believes that this will encourage applicants to submit
preliminary plats with the appropriate supplementary information.
3) The Commission should adopt a policy or a resolution to amend
the Zoning ordinance which would allow an applicant to present
a conceptual site plan to the Commission for their information.
There would be no approval or action taken but it would be an
opportunity to gather comments from the Commission on a proposal.
No advertisement or notification would be sent out and the
planner could decide on a case by case basis if staff comments
are necessary.
4) As we have discussed in the past, administrative approval of some
subdivision plats could facilitate the review procedure. Several
alternatives are listed below:
a) Administrative approval of up to five (5) (or other specified
number) lots on a private road when all terms of the ordinance
can be met;
b) Administrative approval of a final plat when preceded by a
Commission approved preliminary plat;
c) The Commission could review only those plans and plats
appealed by a Commissioner, the Board of Supervisors, the
applicant, an adjacent owner or a member of the Site Review
Committee. This would require that the review schedule
be changed. This is similar to the City's review procedure.
5) Some minor site plans could be approved administratively.
Criteria for administrative approval could include: amendments
to existing site plans not previously considered "minor"'; sites
not affecting adjacent property owners, etc. The ordinance must
be amended to provide for administraive approval of site plans.
6) It would be beneficial to the applicant and the staff to
require that a preliminary conference be held prior to any site
plan or subdivision submittal. This is often a requirement of
the ordinance but has not been strictly adhered to in all cases.
7) The Technical Site Review Committee has the authority to make
detailed recommendations to the Planning Commission. This includes
a recommendation for denial, deferral or approval. If a
committee member feels that insufficient information has been
submitted, a recommendation for deferral or denial can be made.
8) Several very general handouts have been prepared to give procedural
information to the public. These include a general procedural
outline chart, official submittal deadline list, fee schedule,
and a directory of elected and appointed officials.
9) Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation for approval of preliminary road and drainage
plans. Unless otherwise allowed by the County Engineer, pre-
liminary drainage and road plans shall consist of the following:
*Preliminary road plans - note the center line of proposed road-
ways showing approximate curvature (measured); preliminary center
line profile for proposed roadway showing approximate grades;
the typical section of roadway; general location of property with
the specific location of all intersections with existing State
roads;
*Preliminary drainage plans - note the proposed drainage divide
and the outfall drainage area proposed.
The highway department has also stated that in some cases a traffic
analysis plan should be required.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that with regard to condition 4.a.,
five lots on a private road is suggested because there are five
development rights allowed on a parcel.
Mr. Elrod stated that he felt one of the problems that developers
and engineers have is trying to meet the deadline for submittals,
revision, etc. He stated that he is reluctant to review a plan
when adequate time has not been allowed. He further stated that
he felt a preliminary plan would be beneficial to the applicant
as well as tothe various departments which have to review the plan.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the deadlines for revisions, etc., are
necessary. She noted that the soil erosion plans, road plans,
drainage plans, etc. should all be submitted simultaneously.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if a preliminary plan was required (with the
final plan to be approved administratively by the staff) this would
allow the applicant approximately one extra week to submit the
necessary information to the various departments.
Mr. Elrod stated that he favors a preliminary plan because it would
at a minimal cost, be beneficial to the applicant, the staff and the
Planning Commission. He noted that the final plat could be approved
administratively.
Ms. Caperton stated that she does not object to having a preliminary
plan submitted instead of the final, as long as the applicant is
willing to submit the final engineering plans. She also pointed out
that it would behoove the applicant to have a preliminary conference
with members of the staff before he submits his plans.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if a preliminary plan was submitted this
would enable the Commission to point out items that they felt should
be included on the final plat.
In
� jo
M
M
om
Mr. Elrod stated that any changes made on the final plat, such as
road plans, etc., would be brought back to the Commission for their
review.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the review of preliminary plats would
be more intensive.
Ms. Caperton noted that the review of the preliminary plans would
be similar to the review process used by the City.
Mr. Bowerman stated that in some cases where there are major concerns
such as drainage, he felt a final plat should be reviewed by the
Commission.
Ms. Caperton explained that if a preliminary plat has been approved
by the Commission, staff could administratively approve the final
plat. She pointed out that this would mean that a final plat would
have to be submitted with all the drainage plans, etc. approved but
it would not have to go through the review process. She also noted
that the final plat would have to be submitted within a specific
time frame.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that a final plat could be required, for Commission
review, by the staff or by the Commission itself.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the adoption of this procedure would require
a change in the ordinance.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the Commission should adopt this procedure
as a "policy change" in order to determine how it would work.
Mrs. Joan Graves asked if this policy is adopted, would the
adjacent property owners be notified.
Mr. Payne explained that notification of property owners, when a
site plan is submitted for review, is required by the Zoning
Ordinance. He also pointed out that adjacent property owners
are notified of subdivisions in their area as a matter of courtesy.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that if adjacent owners were notified
when the preliminary plan was submitted, they would not necessarily
be notified again if the final plat is approved administratively.
Mrs. Graves stated that it is difficult to make any input on a
preliminary plan because it is nebulous.
Mr. Payne noted for the benefit of the Commission that the sixty day
time frame which applies to final plats would not apply to a
preliminary plat.
all
7
Nor. Payne noted his concern that the Commission might be put in
the position of "advising" applicants as to what would and would
not be acceptable.
Mr. Bowerman noted the following changes as recommended by the
Commission:
• if a final plat is submitted in lieu of a preliminary plat
all the necessary information (road plans, drainage plans, etc)
should be submitted at that time.
• this procedure is to be a "policy change" instead of a change
in order to determine how this procedure would benefit the
applicant, agencies, Commission, and the staff.
• administrative approval of final plat, when preceded by
a Commission approved preliminary plat, Any changes in the
final plat, such as drainge, road plans, etc., would require
review by the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt a list of suggestions for
administrative approval, beyond the five lot division on a private
road, should be presented to the Commission in order to allow
them to establish a policy for administrative approvals.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he.felt more information should be submitted
regarding the recommendation, 4a and 5, as outlined by staff.
(These recommendations are outlined previously).
Ms. Caperton stated that she would prepare a final report incorporating
the views of the Commission and bring said report back to the
Commission for their approval.
Private Roads - The Commission took no action on this at this time
as two members of the Private Road Committee were absent.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
rt W. Tucker, Jr., Sekret*y