HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 20 86 PC MinutesMay 20, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 20, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould;
Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr.
John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the May 6, 1986 meeting were
approved as submitted.
Meadowcreek Parkway - Staff is requesting comments from the Planning
Commission and endorsement of a preferred alignment for Meadowcreek
Parkway.
Mr. Horne gave the staff report. He also reported that the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation had held a public hearing
and a locational hearing on this issue in March, 1986, and the County
had taken no position on the proposal at that time. The report stated
that staff was recommending Alignment D, without the grade separated
interchange at the 250 Bypass, and the design was consistent with that
favored by the City of Charlottesville. Staff favored this design
for the following reasons: (1) There would be no disruption of the
existing rescue squad facilities on McIntire Road; (2) There would be
wider separations of the north bound and south bound lanes in the County
portion which would minimize the visual impact of the roadway as that area
develops; and (3) There would be less disruption of McIntire Park as
compared to a design using an interchange at Rt. 250. (Note: Alignment
D was shown in yellow on the map; the grade separated interchange
was shown in red.) Mr. Horne reported the right-of-way costs for
Alignment A (with no separation of the north and south bound lanes in
the County) was 2.3 million dollars, and for Alignment D (with a
separation of the north and south bond lanes) was 4.6 million dollars,
or approximately $97,000/acre. He stressed this was only an estimate
and stated that staff questions these figures, which were provided by
VDH&T. He reported the cost of the diamond interchange would be
4.3 million dollars. He reported the County's share of the cost
for Alignment A would be 6 million dollars, and for Alignment D,
7.7 million dollars.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question about the McIntire Tennis Courts, Mr.
Horne reported the Environmental Impact Statement had said that the
courts would not be effected by the yellow alignment. However, Mr.
Horne indicated he did not agree with this statement.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about how much additional acreage
`all. would be required to separate the lanes in the County portion, Mr.
Horne reported approximately 22 acres would be required if the lanes
were not separated, and 46 would be required for the separation of the
lanes.
51
May 20, 1986
Page 2
Mr. Horne reviewed the history of this project briefly and stated that
in 1983 the Board had endorsed a design for a parkway with a wide
separation of lanes and a detailed landscaping plan. He said the
Highway Department has considered that design to be the choice of
the County since that time. He pointed out that no cost estimates
were available at that time.
Mr. Horne confirmed the difference in cost, to the County, in constructing
the separated design as opposed to the non -separated design, would be
$1.7 million and an additional 24 acres of land would be required.
He stated the difference in cost was essentially a right-of-way cost.
It was determined the Commission was opposed to Alignment D with
the widely separated lanes because of the excessive property that would
be required and the extra cost which would result. The Commission felt the
benefits did not outweigh this consideration.
Mr. Horne stated that if the "four -lane roadway" design was constructed,
as opposed to the parkway design with the widely separated lanes,
landscaping would still be done in the median and along the edge.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was
placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan moved that Alignment A for the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway,
with an at -grade crossing of Rt. 250 and no separation of north and south
bound lanes in the County portion, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Subdivision Requirements of Developed Property - Discussion and presentation
of staff recommendations regarding waivers of modifications of Subdivision
Ordinance requirements of developed property.
Mr. Horne presented a memorandum to the Commission which explained that
"from time to time, a subdivision plat is presented to the Planning Commission
where two or more dwellings have been located on the property. The
applicant argues for relief from some (or all) requirements of the subdivision
ordinance citing that no additional burden would result since the property
is already developed." The memo indicated it was staff's position that
waivers should be limited to cases of "substantial injustice or hardship"
as stated in the Code of Virginia (Sec. 15-1-466B) since it was not an
"unusual situation" to find more than one dwelling on an individual
property in this county. The memorandum also stated the "County's Subdivision
Ordinance currently contains waiver provisions similar in wording to the
Code of Virginia (Sec. 18-3(b) ... but does not specifically recognize
development as a basis to waive requirements."
Staff requested comments from the Commission regarding this issue.
,3 _z,
May 20, 1986
Page 3
The memorandum from staff offered the following recommendations regarding
this issue:
1. Waiver/modification of subdivision requirements related to
developed properties is most appropriately addressed on a
case -by -case basis and the Planning Commission should
continue to entertain such requests;
2. Waiver should not be granted solely to serve the proprietary
interests of the subdivider but should be based on circumstances
of "substantial injustice or hardship." Waiver should not be
granted just because the property is developed but because of the
manner in which the property is developed or some other extraordinary
circumstance precludes reasonable application of ordinance requirements.
3. Waiver based on physical development should be available to
property developed prior to the adoption date of the
subdivision ordinance (August 24, 1974).
4. Should the Planning Commission agree that these specific provisions
are warranted staff would recommend that Sec. 18-3(b) of the
subdivision ordinance be amended to specifically provide for
waiver/modification of regulations for properties developed
prior to adoption of the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Michel indicated he was concerned about "doing something which might
hurt" family divisions.
10AW
Mr. Cogan indicated he was not in favor of amending Sec. 18-3(b) as
suggested by staff because he felt it would be "locking ourselves in
a little too tight that way." He stated he was in favor of retaining
the current flexibility. He stated that changing the ordinances as
suggested by staff would be saying, "If anything was built on there
after this date in '74, there is no way we can provide any kind of
waiver."
Mr. Bowerman suggested making it effective, 1986. Mr. Horne asked Mr. Payne
to comment on this, i.e. "having a differential date for a specific section
of the ordinance."
Mr. Payne stated he did not see any problem with that, the reason being,
"What you're saying is that we are going to make a change in direction
and we'll make it effective now rather than effective on the date of
the application of the ordinance." Mr. Payne added, "The problems
are going to change in focus, slightly, but the basic problem is going
to be the same, i.e. there are going to be some cases where, whatever
rule you apply, if you apply any rule, there are going to be some people
who fall outside of it."
It was determined that the Commission favored staff's recommendation
No. 1 (as stated above), with each proposal to be handled on a case -by -case
basis. The Commission was not in favor of an ordinance change.
It was determined the Commission was agreeable to staff developing some guide-
lines setting forth the Commission's policy on this issue.
May 20, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Commission must be consistence with the
way the ordinance is applied and must be able to justify, in some
rational fashion, its actions.
It was agreed the Commission already does this in every case.
The regular meeting ended at 8:30 p.m. It was followed by a Work Session
on the Comprehensive Plan.
WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Horne presented a tentative work
schedule for the Comprehensive Plan review, followed by Mr. Cilimberg,
who continued reviewing the goals and objectives.
Regarding the tentative work schedule presented by Mr. Horne, Commission
comments included the following:
--There was considerable discussion about staff's proposed use of
sub -committees in the process and exactly what their function
would be. Mr. Michel indicated he questioned whether there
should be a citizen representative on such committees. There was
some lack of understanding of how the sub -committee would
function. It was finally determined there would be only
two sub -committees, one dealing with Land Use and one dealing
with Transportation, Public Utilities and Special Issues.
The Chairman of the Commission will serve on both sub -committees
with 3 Commissioners on each one, in addition to staff, etc.
--There was a great deal of concern about staff's proposed time
schedule for the review, which was estimated at 2 years. It
was unanimously felt this should be shortened and that the
aim should be to complete the process in not more than 18 months.
--The Commission felt it was very important to first determine
how much revision to the Plan was actually contemplated and
that the following questions need to be answered:
(1) What are the major issues?
(2) What changes are needed?
(3) Do individual Commissioners have specific areas of concern?
(4) Is a major revision called for, or simply a review?
--It was unanimously felt the public should be involved in the
review process.
--Mr. Bowerman felt the Land Use component was one of the major issues
to be addressed.
--It was determined very simply minutes would be kept of sub -committee
meetings, i.e. showing time, place, attendance, and decisions made.
--It was determined staff would act as liaison between the two
committees to insure coordination between the two.
--It was determined staff would put together another work schedule
with a "cut-off" point of September, 1987.
Mr. Cilimberg continued the review of the goals and objectives, taking up
where the last work session had ended, at Goal 1, Objective 5.
3 `�
May 20, 1986
Page 5
Commission comments included the following:
--Goal 1, Objective 5: Strategies C and D should be combined.
Staff should do further research on Best Management Practices, possibly
contacting the Virginia Farm Bureau and similar organizations,
to see how this can be encouraged. It was felt strategy E would
be difficult to implement, though it was very desirable and
should be expanded even further. Staff was to investigate
the possibility of making the wording even stronger.
--Goal 1, Objective 7: It was felt the County should be very aggressive
in its preservation policies to protect the scenic resources of the
County.
--Goal 2, Objective 3: Felt it was very important to determine if
agriculture is a significant viable industry in the County, and,
if so, it must be protected.
It was determined that by following the review procedure outlined by staff,
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance would be brought "closer to
being one document." Mr. Horne confirmed the Zoning Ordinance was being
used to effectuate the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The work session ended at 10:30 p.m.
DS
In
John Horne, Secretary