HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 15 86 PC MinutesJuly 15, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and public
forum on Tuesday, July 15, 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;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark.
Other officials present: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior
Planner. Absent: Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the July 1, 1986 meeting were
approved as written.
Keswick/Kinloch Agricultural Districts - Presentation of Advisory Committee
recommendations. (No action required.)
Ms. Scala presented the report of the Committee. It was determined the
Commission would hold a public hearing on the proposed district on
August 19, 1986.
The Commission accepted the report of the Advisory Committee.
PUBLIC FORUM - To receive comments from the public regarding the revision
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman explained that this meeting was not a public hearing, in the
legal sense, since the Commission would be taking no action. He stated,
"All remarks, comments, suggestions, and criticisms will be recorded
and provided to the Commission and to the Planning Staff so that they can
be incorporated into our discussion as we work on revising the Comprehensive
Plan over the next 12 - 18 months. It is not the Commission's intention
to comment on this evening's remarks tonight. As in past Comprehensive
Plan revisions, all of the Commission's work will be accomplished in
work sessions which will be open to the public so that you can monitor
our thinking and direction. We will be using two committees to develop
recommendations for consideration by the full Commission. Also, it is
likely that the committees, and the Commission as a whole, will solicit
public input as we proceed, and, of course, written comments will be
greatfully accepted at any time, as a result of anything that you hear
at any of our work sessions on which you wish to comment." Mr.
Bowerman stated that,historically,public comment has been accepted at
work sessions though they are not actually public hearings.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. J.W. Scales, representing Mr. William Edgerton, addressed the Commission
and read the following statement prepared by Mr. Edgerton:
/P1
July 15, 1986
Page 2
As a citizen of Albemarle County, an Architect, a developer,
and a sincerely committed member of the Board's of several local
environmental groups, I am constantly amazed at the
inconsistancies in the application and/or enforcement of the
various ordinances that are supposedly in place to protect our
environment and the Comprehensive Plan which should be the
philosophical basis for all zoning in Albemarle County.
TWO EXAMPLES OF THE INCONSISTANCES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1.) Our Comprenehsive Plan in an effort to protect our
argricultural and rural areas urges "cluster development", and yet
the requirements for clustering development in Albemarle County,
whether it be clustering of lots or clustering of actual dwelling
units are so severe that there is no incentive for a developer to
use "cluster development". Any "cluster development" plan in the
rural area must receive a "special .use" permit and this of course
involves significantly more reviews and usually many months of
time for these reviews. In my experience, a "by -right
development" only requires a couple of months for a review, and
usually a mandated approval, whereas a "special use" permit can
take as long as a year and of course there is no guarantee that
the permit will be granted. I sincerely believe that the time
issue alone negates the chance that "cluster development• will
ever actually take hold in Albemarle County.
2.) Our Comprehensive Plan correctly addresses the real concern
for disturbing "critical slopes" in a County that geologically is
compelled to depend on surface run-off .for water to replenish our
reservoir, and yet the Administrators of the Soil Erosion
Ordinance seem uncertain, at best, about the implications of their
decisions to allow building sites, septic sites, and roads through
these critical slopes. Of particular interest is that the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance refer to different
percent gradiants (15%, 20%, 25% 7) as determinants of a critical
slopes and even though the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
91
July 15, 1986
Page 3
both discuss at length the concerns for disturbing critical slopes
in fact there is no practical way to actually protect critical
slopes using the system as it stands today. Even though the
Comprehensive Plan does an excellent job of addressing the
critical slope issue, the reality of administering both the Zoning
Ordinance and the Soil Erosion Ordinance do not in fact involve
the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Since the legal
enforcement of the Comprehensive Plan is very debatable, the
County officials are forced to rely on the environmentally weaker
two ordinances in an attempt to implement the guidelines of the
Comprehensive Plan and in reality, there is no way either of the
Ordinances can prevent an alteration of these slopes. Of course,
once this alteration has occurred, there is no way to reverse the
damage.
SUMMARY
Most developers are very familiar with the provisions of the
Ordinances, because it is through these Ordinances that they can
�lilr+ determine what options are available to them in the development of
their lands. of course, the officials of the County empowerred to
administer the Zoning of the County, are likewise most familiar
with these same Ordinances and daily they are called on to apply
these Ordinances for the benefits of our community. In
determination of development options the Comprehensive Plan is
only used in the case of a "special use permits" which by any
other name is a variance. What this means is that creative
development (even when it is based on sincere concerns for the
environment) is being discouraged because of the added onus that
it must comply with the Comprehensive Plan whereas less creative
(i.e. "by right") development is encouraged because of reduced
review by the County.
As an environmentalist, I would urge the County to amend the
existing ordinances to comply with the more stringent
environmental concerns of the Comprehensive Plan.
As a developer, I would urge the County to at least make the
Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances consistant with each other
to facilitate the development process for both the private sector
and the planning staff, and as a citizen of the County, I would
urge the County to listen hard to their constituency.
July 15, 1986
Page 4
Ms. Bunny Murray, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed
the Commission. Her comments included the following:
--Need to re -identify rural areas where increased development and growth
will not be detrimental to our future.
--Areas which have grown "beyond capacity" should be put on hold until
the infrastructure catches up with the over -growth.
(She gave as an example the reservoir and stated that of 143 lots
created in the rural area in 1985, 96 were within the watershed of
the reservoir.)
--The 1982 Comprehensive Plan recommended 13% growth in the rural areas,
but actual growth has been 55%.
--A major goal of this five-year revision must be the adjustment of
rural area development to protect such finite resources as water
supplies and vanishing farmlands.
--She cautioned against granting variances and giving in to "a little
here and a little more there."
--"It is our hope that you will protect and preserve the natural
resources of our county."
Mr. Rick Preve, a professional forester and a member of the Board of
Directors of Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. He
stressed the importance of forestry in the County, both economically
and environmentally, and asked that the Commission keep this in mind
as they review the Plan. He emphasized that carefully monitored timber
harvesting, in accordance with Best Management Practices, would help insure
a clean water supply. He also referred to the importance of forests
in maintaining clean air.
Ms. Judy Vermillion addressed the Commission. Her principle concern
was that section of the Plan which deals with historic landmarks.
She felt more should be done to identify the historically significant
properties in the County, not just those with official historic
landmark designation. She asked that more information be included in
the plan regarding these properties and that a provision should be
included for establishment of historic districts. She asked that
the many reports and surveys which have been done in this area,
particularly one done by the Piedmont Environmental Council, in
conjunction with the University of Virginia Department of Architecture,
be given consideration in the review process.
Mr. John Reddick, President of Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission.
He stated his organization planned to be actively involved in the review process
as it has been in previous revisions of the Plan. He stated he was
particularly interested in that portion of the plan dealing with
Growth and Objectives, particularly the objective stating "To
accommodate 87% of new residential development in the urban area,
communities and villages." He felt the issue of whether or not this
was realistic was very important. He stated, "The view of Citizens
for Albemarle on this point is that the Commission and the Comprehensive
Plan should not abandon these earlier goals designed to preserve the
rural character of the County and to protect our natural resources.
We emphasize that the Comprehensive Plan is an outline of broad
objectives, that sketch as a goal, what we want the County to be. We
do not believe we should set goals which are the lowest common denominator
or that simply reflect what is perceived by some to be the continued
inevitable growth in our rural areas. We urge that these earlier goals
July 15, 1986
Page 5
of the current Plan, on this point, be strongly reconfirmed by the
Commission and that the Commission should re -dedicate itself to the
implementation of these goals by exercising their authority to say
"no" when necessary. We emphasize that these goals are anything
but no -growth goals. Growth is indeed encouraged, but not in a
scatter-gun manner."
Ms. Linda Wilson, Executive Director of JAUNT, addressed the Commission.
She encouraged the Commission to continue its support for public
transportation, particularly to rural areas and for the elderly,
handicapped and low income.
Mr. Dave Emmett, Chairman of ALERT, a coalition of seven neighborhood
associations in the Rivanna District, addressed the Commission.
He indicated his association looked forward to being involved in the
review process.
Ms. Treva Cromwell addressed the Commission. She was primarily interested
in the problem of "providing adequate, safe and cost-effective utilities
to serve existing developments and thereby guide the direction, extent
and timing of new development." Her comments included the following:
--"How can we provide significant incentives and requirements for
subdivision developers to provide central water systems that will
guarantee long-term service and also come under the controls of
the Safe Drinking Water Act?"
--"Planning for the extension of Albemarle County services, water
and sewer services, to existing developments, as well as to new
developments,should include an analysis of costs and a determination
of who pays. How much should the developer, who passes on those
costs,pay? How much should the Albemarle County Service Authority
pay? That means, how much should all its water and sewer customers
pay, both those who are already receiving service, and those who
are to be served by the extension. All County taxpayers will not
help pay for the extension of water services south of the city,
but County taxpayers who use County water will. That is because
the Service Authority has only one water rate for all its customers,
regardless of where they live and regardless of varying wholesale
water rates. I am not quarrelling with that policy; but I do
believe that there should be a definite plan developed which sets
forth the conditions under which water and sewer will be extended
and how costs will be allocated between developers and all water
and sewer customers."
-'-'At the present time when we talk about providing utilities to any
area in order to promote growth; we are talking about extending such
services at a cost of 'so many dollars' to be shared by the
developer and all the utility users. If such growth policies
are desirable, should all taxpayers share, to some extent, in the
cost, not just those who will directly benefit, the developer
and the new users, as well as the customers who are already on
line? Or should the developer share a greater share of the cost?"
Ms. Betsy Dahlgleish, a Board member of the Piedmont Environmental Council,
addressed the Commission. She asked that the Commission consider
strengthening the Scenic River and Road Sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
July 15, 1986 Page 6
She explained that "State designation of a river or road as scenic provides
protection from some state actions as well as recognition of its value as
a natural resource. It also aids areas in receiving grant monies from
the state and may help landowners who wish to grant permanent conservation
easements to have a Virginia Outdoors Foundation accept such a grant."
Mr. Bob Newman, President of Charlottesville Federation of Neighborhood
Associations, addressed the Commission. He stressed that the County's
Comprehensive Plan would have tremendous impact on the quality of
life in City neighborhoods. His comments included the following:
--"Not only the city's water supply, but also more and more of the
traffic in the city, more of the economic growth which will operate
around and through the city, more of the goods and services used
by the city, more of the housing market, and, most significantly,
more of the people using the city's housing facilities, services,
transit system, street system, air space and commercial, residential
and institutional land area, will come through the County or leave
and go to the County."
--"Wouldn`t it be good planning, as well as good politics and good
neighborly ethics, to include a section in the Comprehensive Plan
on relations, problems and common concerns with the City of
Charlottesville?"
--"I want to emphasize the interest of the City neighborhoods in
the inclusion of some coherent transportation plan. Wouldn't it
be good planning... to make sure that some effective transportation
policy plan with the entire network of roads in Albemarle County
and, perhaps in footnote, the main corridors into and out of
Charlottesville, is included in the Comprehensive Plan as soon
as possible?"
--"Wouldn't it be good planning... to include in the overall system
of ultimate goals determining the standards and policies in the
Plan, a goal that explicitly sets forth a good -neighbor policy
with explicit commitment to equity not only to the residents of
Albemarle, but also to the residents of Charlottesville, Fluvanna,
Greene, Louisa and Nelson?"
--"I hope that as you develop the update of the Plan, you will encourage
participation by city residents."
Ms. Babs Huckle addressed the Commission. Her primary interest was in
the protection of the water supply (groundwater resources). Her
comments included the following:
--Until groundwater recharge areas can be identified and protected
from development, "the paving over of the ground and the diversion
of streams, both permanent and wet weather, into pipes should be
minimized. Water that is piped away has no chance of recharging
groundwater. Perhaps a special permit should be required before
such piping is allowed."
--"Surface water protection strategies should include the strictest
application of the Runoff Control Ordinance and Soil Erosion
Ordinance, both during construction and after a project is complete.
Current ordinances should be reviewed. Should not the area allowed
to be graded without a permit or erosion controls be reduced on
land close to the reservoir or its immediate tributary?"
--"I suggest mandating the use of BMP's (Best Management Practices) in
urban development as a condition of approval. The County should
tie the use of BMP's more closely to the State Department of
July 15, 1986
Page 7
Agricultural and Consumer Services standards for receiving Use
r Value Taxation stature."
--"To protect ground and surface water, the County should tighten
its standards, including limiting the septic systems to slopes of
15% or less as was originally requested by the State Health
Department."
--"The Comprehensive Plan should widen its horizens and remember
that runoff from here effects not only Albemarle County's
water supply, but that of downstream users as well."
Mr. Gary Oliveri, Executive Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program (AHIP), addressed the Commission. He explained that the current
Plan calls for rehabilitation of 27 low and moderate income houses per year,
and this objective has been met. He explained that the County funds
less than 30% of this program with the remaining funding coming from
various federal, state and local sources. He stressed the importance of
the County's support of the program and stated, "With hardly any other
activity taking place to increase the low and moderate income housing
stock in the County, we believe it becomes critical to not only maintain
what we do have, but to improve it by correcting the major deficiencies
in as many of these existing units as possible." He stated there are
currently 1,980 substandard units in the County, approximately 10% of
total housing. He indicated his organization wished to be actively
involved in the review process.
Mr. Josh Sherman, owner of Chermont Vineyard, addressed the Commission.
He called the Commission's intention to this relatively new agricultural
activity in the County. He explained that there are currently ten
wineries in the Monticello District, most of which are in Albemarle County.
Mr. Blake Hurt, a local developer, addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
--"I want to encourage the Commission to concentrate the growth in
areas that serve it."
--"(I want to encourage the Commission) to build into the Plan
over the next five years a certain amount of flexibility to allow
for changes that are unforeseen now."
--"(I want to encourage the Commission) to consider the overall issue
of growth in the County."
--"I think that the Comprehensive Plan should reflect the growth of
the past five years."
--"The Comprehensive Plan should accommodate companies that want
to move to the area." (He gave as an example the UNOGEN Company.)
If an area is designated for industrial growth, then the Plan should
encourage companies to locate in those areas. If a certain industry
is felt to be unsuited for these areas, then alternatives should
be available.
--"The County should encourage lot development in those areas where the
density is best suited. Look at the present roads you've got;
what roads are underused? Try to focus the density to increase on
those areas." (He gave as an example Rt. 29 South.)
.r --"Encourage cluster development. If a large land owner has a number
of property rights, you should look favorably upon requests to put
those property rights together and build a cluster in one section
of the property rather than having the guy build one house every
111
July 15, 1986
Page 8
five to twenty acres and building 50 houses. Put those 50 houses
up in one corner if he dedicates the (remaining property) to Rural/
Agricultural."
--"The Plan should have enough flexibility to allow housing to go
in a variety of areas." The Plan should anticipate growth in
certain areas, (He gave as an example the Fontaine Avenue area.)
"I am advocating more higher densities around those areas
we want to encourage it, enough so that a builder who can't
come to terms with one landowner hasn't been ruled out of the
entire property. I think you see a lot of disperse building
as a result of a lot of the high density property being
in the hands of a few people. Property costs are too high so
people go out and find some little farmer who has a bunch
of property rights and that's where he builds. That's part
of the problem."
--He felt the Comprehensive Plan should, in some way, consider the
policies of the Highway Department.
--"I would like to see a more careful analysis of what it means to
be in the Watershed and what the impact of growth in the watershed
has been. I would like to see some factual data on what has happened
to the reservoir in the last five years when the growth in that area has
not been 13%, but has been 55%. How dangerous is it?"
--"The issue of low-income housing should be addressed in the Plan
(so as not to make the County an enclave for the rich)."
--"One of the ideas I would encourage the Comprehensive Plan to have
is enough areas that the County can foresee growth that would
allow developers who are acting independently, without guidance
from the Comprehensive Plan, to be able to find a place to build.
By strictly tightening where they can build, forcing the property
into a few hands, you will find people building all over the place,
anywhere they can, whereas if you encourage developments in the
larger sections where they are plenty of lots for everyone who
wants to become a builder, you will see the concentration of
growth in those areas."
Mr. James King, a city resident (one block from the County line), addressed
the Commission. He indicated his support for those statements which
had previously been made by representives of the Piedmont Environmental
Council and Citizens for Albemarle. He stressed that what the County does
effects the quality of life in the City and surrounding counties as well.
He stated, "I would like to see something in the Plan that speaks to
all these interagency agreements." He also stated he would like to
see the goals for Social Services expanded. He also felt there was a
need for a "better social data base." He felt there should be a more
explicit "good -neighbor policy."
Mr. Mark Brandt addressed the Commission and asked that the Plan accommodate,
as far as possible, inns, bed and breakfast, and small conference centers.
He felt this was an industry of sort which made use of the natural beauty
of the area without destroying it.
J7
July 15, 1986 Page 9
Mr. Don Wagner, a local developer, addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
�400 --More industrially zoned land should be added in the airport area.
--He asked the Commission to pay particular attention to the Highway
Department's proposed grade -separated interchange at Rio Rd./29N
and the negative effect it will have on existing businesses and
level of local service.
--He asked that growth be encouraged where roads already exist, such
as Rt. 29S and, to the east and west, property close to the Interstate.
Ms. Tamara Vance, an employee of the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed
the Commission. She presented the Commission with copies of two reports:
one dealing with the impoftance of agriculture in the County; and the other
dealing with the p `'6c impact of lands in different uses. She explained
that the of the study dealing with land uses show that "it is
p y sound public policy to try to retain rural land in open space
uses."
Mr. Floyd Artrip, a county resident, addressed the Commission. He was
concerned primarily with traffic congestion. He asked that particular
attention be given to overall traffic patterns and suggested that growth
should be planned in those areas "where you have some capacity." He
also suggested "decentralization and putting industrial sites nearer
residential areas such as the airport." Mr. Artrip also pointed out that
a goal of the 1982 Plan, for Neighborhood Four, had been to provide access
from Avon Street to the Interstate, and that still has not taken place.
He felt it would be a mistake to drop this goal from the Plan.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission. She stated: "Philosophically
speaking, to a philosophical plan, all we can say for our little neighborhood
is just don't make things any worse. If we get statuted with the colors
on the present plan, if they stay the same, but the Ordinance doesn't change,
then that's all that we can expect. If they stay the same but the densities
change, or the procedures change whereby the public can be informed and
keep informed, then it does make a difference. The Berkeley Community
Association Board of Directors empowered me to say this."
Mr. Paul Saunier, a city resident who has been active in city/county
projects, addressed the Commission. He stated: "This plan must be a
realistic one and backed up by ordinances and enforcement and resources
so that it does stay in active use and does not sit on the shelf unknown
by people." Mr. Saunier asked, particularly, that the Plan reflect the
County's support of the City/County/University joint statement which
was issued earlier this year.
Ms. Katherine Griffin addressed the Commission. She expressed her support
for housing rehabilitation and asked that the Plan provide a section dealing
with the possible purchase, by the County, of some of these properties so
that they can be rehabilitated rather than lost. She also proposed that
old County buildings (such as old school buildings) could go to the AHIP
program.
It was determined there was no further public comment. The Chairman
stated he was very pleased with the quality of the comments that had
been made and expressed his appreciation to the public for their
participation.
/4
July 15, 1986
Page 10
Mr. Horne stated he had been contacted by a- Chamber of Commerce representative,
Ms. Elwood, who had expressed that organization's desire to participate in "Wad
the review process. He stated the Chamber was particularly interested in
discussions relating to the economic development policy.
The meeting recessed from 9:10 to 9:20.
Though a discussion of the priorities for issues to be addressed during
the review of the Plan was scheduled for this meeting, it was decided this
would be postponed until the July 29 meeting in order to give the
Commission time to review the comments that had taken place at this meeting.
Hollymead Square II - Site Plan Approval Extension - Mr. Horne explained
that this was a request for a second extension. (Original approval July, '84;
6-month extension approved January, '86) In response to Mr. Bowerman's
question, Mr. Horne stated that grading has not begun, though they are
very close to beginning to grade. Mr. Horne stated he was aware that the
developer has had a great deal of problems with the Highway Department
which have recently been resolved. Mr. Horne stated he was "reasonably
confident" that construction would begin within the next 6 months.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the implications of the new Landscape Ordinance.
Mr. Horne replied, "They were not imposed in January; the site plan has,
in effect, notexpired, it will expire on Thursday of this week. So if
you were to re -approve the extension now, you would not be approving a
new site plan. If you let it expire and it is brought back to you, then
the existing site plan, in effect, does not exist, and you could impose
the new conditions." Mr. Michel recalled that there had been a lot of
problems with this site plan, primarily dealing with runoff. Mr. Horne
indicated the Engineering Department was dealing with this issue. In
response to Mr. Michel's question as to whether or not the staff would
like "another shot" at this site plan, Mr. Horne replied, "I don't
think the staff wants another shot through the Commission. We are very
actively working with the developer on the design for good drainage
improvements." Ms. Diehl recalled that there had been a great deal of
public comment on this application, and stated she was uncomfortable with
a second extension without public input. Mr. Michel asked what other
regulations had changed besides the landscaping requirements. Mr.
Horne indicated that was all that has changed. He added, "The Board,
since then, has had to extend also some tax-free bonding that was done
on this project." It was determined there was no limit on the number of
extensions that can be granted. It was also determined that the Commission
could grant an extension for a period other than that which was requested
by the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt it was determined that the developer's
proposed measures satisfied the concerns of the public, and he did not
think anything had changed since that time. He added that perhaps the
developer should be put on notice that this would be the last extension.
C
11
July 15, 1986
Page 11
M
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Horne if he felt there was anything to be gained by
making this go through another site plan procedure. Mr. Horne replied,
"No, sir. I don't see any change in the conditions, so if there was
a resolution of whatever concerns were expressed at that meeting, which
I think largely were drainage, the resolution is not going to be any different
this time around." It was determined another site plan would probably
be identical to this one.
It was determined the Commission was agreeable to a 4 month extension.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Hollymead Square Phase II Apartment Site Plan
site plan approval be extended for four months.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
The Chairman directed the staff to inform the applicant that this had
been a "close call" and a re -submittal might be required the next time.
The motion for approval of a 4-month extension was unanimously approved.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
1zn