HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 28 87 PC MinutesJuly 28, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, July 28, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard
Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Diehl and Stark.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of July 14, 1987 were approved
as submitted.
Raintree, Phase V Final - Proposal to create twenty-one (21) lots, with an
average lot size of 21,400 square feet. Total area of the site is 8.88
acres. The property is zoned R-2 (with cluster development for 2.2 dwelling
units per acre). Property, located on the east side of Old Brook Road,
just north of Hopkins Court in the Raintree development. Tax Map 61,
Parcels 125 and 126. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification of how runoff from the roadway
would be handled. He asked particularly where the detention basin would
be located. Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, responded to
Mr. Bowerman's questions and explained that a new basin was being
designed which would be located "off this plat" in the next phase.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt Mr. Bowerman wanted to be sure that none of
the runoff would drain into Northfields.
Mr. Benish added that the applicant had also submitted a section of
Phase VI, a portion of which will also drain into this detention basin.
Mr. Cogan recalled that at the time of the preliminary plat residents
of Northfields were concerned about the possibility of runoff from
the development draining onto their property. He again asked the
applicant to address this question specifically.
Mr. Bob Hauser, representing the applicant, responded: "Basically,
the condition is that we'll be in compliance with your detention
ordinance. The drainage on the property right now is draining down
towards Northfields into the creek. That creek meanders across the
back of Raintree and crosses under Northfields Road. Where it
crosses is a lot that is, for all intents and purposes, unbuildable--
it's kind of a marsh. So the drainage is currently coming in that
direction. We are going to detain it as necessary prior to its
getting to Northfields in that location." Mr. Gale indicated he
agreed with that explanation.
a49
July 28, 1987
Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was satisfied with Mr. Hause.r's explanation
and moved that the Raintree Phase V Final Plat be approved subject
to the the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are
met:
a. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calculations;
b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and calcu-
lations;
C. VDOT approval of road and drainage plans and calculations;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water
and sewer plans;
f. Planting or bonding of screening materials as noted on landscape
plan;
g. County Attorney approval of amended homeowners' documents, if
necessary.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Red Hill Agricultural/Forestal District - Located approximately six miles
south of Charlottesville, mostly on the west side of Rt. 29 South, and
north of Rt. 708. The total acreage is 1,337.71 acres. Planning Commission
acceptance of application.
and
Head of the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal. District - Located mostly on
the west side of Rt. 29 South and the south side of Rt. 692 at Crossroads.
The total acreage is 458.813 acres. Planning Commission acceptance of
application.
Ms. Scala presented the applications to the Commission. No action
was required of the Commission at this time.
The Chairman deviated from the scheduled agenda and called for the
the item listed under New Business (Roslyn Ridge Subdivision: Update)
to be heard next.
Roslyn Ridge Subdivision -.Update - Mr. Horne called the Commission's
attention to a memorandum dated July 20, 1987 from himself to the
Planning Commission which explained this issue. The memorandum included
the following statements:
"Since the approval of the Roslyn Ridge Final Plat by the Planning
Commission and signature of the plat by this department, a number of
activities have been taking place in conjunction with the development
of the subdivision which the Planning Commission should be aware of.
After signing the plat, this department became aware of discussions
between the owner and representatives of the Ivy Creek Foundation
concerning the need for environmental protection measures in
conjunction with development of the roadway and two lots in the
subdivision."
�7D
July 28, 1987
Page 3
The memo further explained that after visiting the site and meeting with
Mr. Kessler (the developer) staff had subsequently outlined voluntary
Nato' environmental protection measures to address this issue. Mr. Horne's
memo stressed that the suggested measures were purely voluntary on the part
of Mr. Kessler and "in no way can be required by the County."
Mr. Horne's memo also pointed out that Mr. Paul Saunier, a representative
of the Ivy Creek Foundation, and other members of the Foundation, have
questioned the notification process for this application. In relation
to this, the memo made the following statement:
''During notification in conjuction with this subdivision,
a formal notice of the pending action was not sent to the City or
the County. The City Planning Department was notified of this
pending action along with all other agenda items under our normal
information sharing procedures. Notification of subdivision plats is
purely a policy of the County and is not required either under state
law or local ordinances. Based on that fact, the County Attorney has
advised this department that there is no legal flaw in the approval
process."
Mr. Horne's memo concluded:
"No action is requested of the Planning Commission and based on
the advi(c)e of the County Attorney, no legal action affecting
the approval of this plat is possible. This matter is being
brought to you for information purposes only."
Prior to inviting public comment on this issue, the Chairman advised
the public that the Roslyn Ridge plat has already been approved
and recorded and is not subject to change, unless voluntarily by
the owner of the subdivision.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission to express their concerns:
Ms. Anne McGuire, President of the Ivy Creek Foundation; Mr. Paul
Saunier, who serves as a liaison officer between the Ivy Creek
Foundation and the local governments; and Mr. Ralph Barthlomew, a retired
forester. Their comments included the following:
--The Ivy Creek Natural Area's boundary with Roslyn Ridge is
its last "unprotected" boundary.
--Both Ms. McGuire and Mr. Saunier felt there was a fallacy in the
notification procedure. They felt the Foundation should have
received notification.
--The primary concern related to the Roslyn Ridge development is
the "risk of grading to the watershed" in the event of a heavy
storm.
--Mr. Barthalomew stated he was "profoundly disturbed" about
the prospects for Martin's Branch, a clear, free -running
tributary which flows into a part of the Rivanna Reservoir
(formerly Ivy Creek). He stated that a heavy downpour would
change Martin's Branch forever.
4IN
July 28, 1987
Page 4
--Ms. McGuire noted that Mr. Kessler had been very cooperative
and receptive to suggestions for addressing this problem.
--Mr. Saunier also stressed that this was not a complaint
against Mr. Kessler who has been very helpful and receptive
to considering a voluntary easement that would protect the
Ivy Creek Natural Area.
--Mr. Saunier felt that the Foundation should have received
notification and also the City and County Parks departments.
--Mr. Saunier felt the cul-de-sac location was the result of
a mathematical error since it is within 60 feet of a stream
and on a 40% slope.
--Mr. Saunier took exception to the statement in Mr. Horne's
memo which said that no "specific" .requests from either the Foundation
or the owners of the Ivy Creek Natural Area (City of Charlottesville
and County of Albemarle jointly) had been received by staff.
Mr. Cogan attempted to address some of the concerns that had been
raised as follows:
--Current grading activity: He explained this is an on -going
process which comes under the jurisdiction of an officer of
the County (Soil Erosion official) and must comply with
certain guidelines. He stated that if it should be determined
that erosion control measures are not sufficient, it should
be reported to this official who will insure that appropriate
corrections are made. It was determined the person to
contact would be Mr. Michael Armm, the County Engineer.
--Roads: Conditions of approval on the plat will require that the
roads be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Virginia Department of Transportation and the County Engineer
and they will determine if the proposed location of the
cul-de-sac is acceptable.
--Notification: He explained that State and County ordinances do
not require notification to adjacent property owners; however,
the County has generally notified adjacent property owners
as a matter of courtesy. He pointed out that the City was
notified by means of an agenda, which is the usual procedure.
Mr. Cogan stated that though the notification, in this
case, may have been "inadequate" it did meet all legal
requirements.
Mr. Cogan concluded by stating that the Roslyn Ridge Plat had met
all the requirements of the Ordinance and the Commission had no
option other than approval. He noted that, in this instance, it
was fortunate that the developer was willing to cooperate
to address the concerns that have been raised. He pointed out
that many of the requests and suggestions that have been made
cannot be legally imposed on the developer.
The Chairman allowed comment from Mr. Kessler, the developer of
Roslyn Ridge.
Mr. Kessler addressed the Commission. He assured those present
at the meeting that it was his intention to give a conservation easement
on lots 10 and 11. He stated he will see that driveways are kept as
far away from the creek as possible and homes will be located on
the "highest part." He stated, "I think we are going to be able to
do what we need to do to protect the stream and to protect our water."
.27A
July 28, 1987
Page 5
Though the Chairman invited comment from Mr. Payne, Mr. Payne felt no
comment was necessary.
Mr. Saunier commented that he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan's
statement that the notification was "inadequate" because he felt
that notification by means of an agenda (to the City) would not
have "raised any flags" since it merely stated "Roslyn Ridge" and
did not point out that it adjoined Ivy Creek Natural Area.
Mr. Payne stressed that he disagreed with the use of the term "inadequate"
because "there is no substantial inadequacy in this notice in terms
of the policy regardless of what the statute or the ordinance would
require. ... I don't think that the Commission or the public should
get the impression that there was some kind of cover-up or that
Mr. Horne's department dropped the ball. In my opinion, that didn't
happen."
Mr. Cogan clarified that his statement had meant that "the notice
may not have been adequate to pinpoint what was happening, but the
notice was adequate insofar as the legality was concerned."
There followed a discussion by the Commission of the notification
procedure that had been followed with the Roslyn Ridge application.
Mr. Payne stressed that the Ivy Creek Foundation was not entitled to
notification, not under current policy or suggested changes in the
subdivision ordinance, because it is not a landowner. It was
determined that the County had received the usual "landowner letter"
but the City had not received that same letter. However, Mr. Payne
stated that, in his opinion, there was "substantial compliance,"
and under no circumstance would notice have been sent to the
Parks departments. Mr. Payne stressed that the statement which
had been made that notification had "not complied with the policy"
was not an accurate statement. The Commission asked for clarification
as to what type of notification the City had received. Mr. Horne
explained that the City had received "a description along with a long list
of agenda items." He stressed that this was not just an agenda, but
rather the site review letter which gives a full description of the
location of the property. Mr. Payne further explained that the
notification which the City received was exactly the same as that
received by the County, except that it lacked the heading "You are
hereby notified as an adjacent property owner." Therefore, he
stated, "In my opinion as to the County's interest in the property,
there was literal, absolute compliance; as to the City there was
substantial compliance." Mr. Payne noted that a problem had arisen
in this instance because there happened to be another entity interested
in the property, but who would not have been entitled to notice.
Mr. Payne felt this was an "insubstantial problem." He added, "In
my judgment it's not something you should worry about because it's
not something you have any realistic means of correcting."
However, Mr. Horne stated that�is staff's intention, in those cases where
there happens to be the City and County as the adjoining property
owners, a formal adjoiner letter notice will be sent to both the
County Executive and the City Manager. There was some concern as to how
July 28, 1987
Page 6
information would then "filter down" to interested parties.
Mr. Payne cautioned that there might be many parties interested in
issues in a non -technical sense (i.e. non -owners), and those persons
are entitled to notice "like any other member of the public."
Mr. Payne pointed out that subdivision is intentionally, by statute,
different and much less formal in terms of notification than is
zoning because it is an administrative process.
Mr. Bowerman felt that it was important that whatever procedure
is followed gives the Commission "the best chance of getting
input when it's deserved" and "the best chance of adequately
notifying people who would be concerned." He suggested that a person
should be designated in both the City and County who would receive notice
and then be responsible for passing the information on to interested
parties.
Mr. Horne stated that he would send a letter to the County
Executive and City Manager advising them that they would be notified
as adjoining property owners and it would be their responsibility
to determine to whom else notice should be sent.
Mr. Payne indicated he was somewhat concerned about this issue because
he felt the Commission was "exaggerating the significance of this
and, on the other hand, minimizing the occasions on which this
could happen." Mr. Payne stated further that he did not feel the
City and County were "unique" and that was the basis for his concern.
Mr. Bowerman still expressed concern and felt that "complying with
the letter of the policy ... could create a bad PR relationship."
However, Mr. Payne pointed out that "it is impossible to anticipate
an entity like that."
Mr. Michel stated he felt Mr. Payne was exaggerating the issue. He
added that he felt Mr. Horne's suggested way of addressing the problem was
a good one, i.e. to send notice to a designated person in the City
and County.
Mr. Gould agreed and stated, "I think we'll feel a lot better by
having improved the whole policy of communication." He also
stated he felt this was "about as good as we can do" because
"we (cannot) ask the staff to anticipate every organization
out tyre that is not a landowner,but has an input into either the
City or the County,to be notified."
WORK SESSION
Policy Manual - Notification of Adjoining Property Owners - Mr.
Horne presented a proposed policy statement related to the procedure
for notifying adjoining property owners. He explained that though
no requirement currently exists in either the Code of Virginia or
the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance requiring notification
of adjoining property owners of a subdivision proposal, the Commission
intends to include a provision during upcoming Subdivision Ordinance
revision.
_174
July 28, 1987 Page 7
Mr. Horne explained that the proposed wording was a precise statement of
the procedure currently being followed by the County, with no revisions
or additions. He pointed out, however, that the only change is the sug-
gestion that a provision addressing notification should be added to the
Subdivision Ordinance.
After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that
the policy statement should not be included as a provision in the
Subdivision Ordinance because there were too many chances for error which
could lead to litigation. The Commission felt it was sufficient to
adhere to a strict policy with an attempt made to tie up loose ends.
The Commission agreed that the following statement was acceptable as a
policy, but that it should not be tied to a legal ordinance (Mr. Payne
agreed):
"Notice of preliminary or final subdivision plat submission
shall be sent by first class mail to the last known address of all
owners of property adjacent to the development. In any case, in which
the property so adjacent is owned by the applicant, notice shall
be given to the owners of the next adjoining property not owned by
the applicant. Mailing to the address shown on the current
real estate tax assessment books of Albemarle County shall be deemed
adequate compliance with this requirement. No plat shall be approved
within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the mailing of such notice.
The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific location of
development, appropriate county office where the subdivision plat may
be viewed, and date of commission meeting."
Mr. Horne stated he had no objection to adding the following to the
policy statement (as suggested by Mr. Michel):
"In no way will any actions by the County be delayed, withheld,
or denied because of non -receipt of notification."
Policy Manual - Staff is Advisory - Mr. Horne presented a proposed policy
statement related to the staff's role in advising the public.
After brief discussion, and several minor changes, the Commission agreed
that the following was acceptable:
"The staff, in regard to the general public
1. Will advise the public as to the requirements and recommenda-
tions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other
applicable documents and laws.
2. Will advise the public, generally, as to past actions by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in similar cases.
3. Will advise the public as to the applicable criteria of review
involved in an individual case.
4. Will make available to the public all identified relevant
materials as soon as the same have been reviewed and approved by
the Director.
41
July 28, 1987
Page 8
5. Will endeavor with all effort to improve the posture in terms of
the general public health, safety, and welfare of any proposal to
be presented to the Commission and/or Board regardless of the
staff's recommendation as to the disposition of such proposal.
6. Will not purport to advise as to the possibility of approval or
disapproval by any appointed or elected body except as herein -
above described.
The general public is advised that the Planning staff and other members
of the Site Review Committee serve in advisory capacity only. Dis-
position of proposals is the responsibility of the Planning Commission
and/or the Board of Supervisors. The Planning staff and other Site
Review Committee members have no authority or power to obligate the
actions of the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors."
Miscellaneous
August 4 meeting: Comp Plan Subcommittee Work Session to be held at end
of regular meeting rather than before meeting.
Clifton application: Approved July 21. Commission approved 6 rooms but
had no objection to 7 as requested by applicant; simply forgot to amend the
condition. Authorized Mr. Horne to advise the Board that the Commission
had no objection to 7 rooms.
Board request for report on Comp Plan progress: Staff to write a memo to
Board giving a schedule update.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
DS
o n Horne, Secretary
o17to