Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 09 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission November 9,1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, November 9, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Pete Anderson. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Ms. Yadira Amarante, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice - Chairman. Approval of Minutes — October 19, 1999 and October 26, 1999 The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of October 19th, 1999 and October 26th, 1999 as amended. Review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting — November 3, 1999 Mr. Benish reported that at the Board's November 3rd meeting, there were no items on the agenda that the Commission had seen before. He mentioned that the Board discussed the extension of Pepsi Place Road to Zan Road; the Board also received a presentation of the PDR (ACE) Program from the ACE Committee, and agreed to hold a worksession in December to further discuss that initiative. Other Matters not listed on the agenda I%W None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. R Consent Agenda SUB 99-238 Delmer Thorne Family Division Waiver Request — Request for relief from Section 4.2.2 Area Regulations which requires a building site to have adequate area for two specific drain fields. Property is located on approximately 4.00 acres zoned RA (Rural Area), is described as Tax Map 101-Parcel 6A, and is located in the Southwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 631 and the North Fork Hardware River, approximately one mile north of the intersection of Routes 631 and Route 708. This property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is designated as rural Area in Rural Area 4 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. SUB 99-212 Chris Colasuonno Preliminary Plat — Request for preliminary plat approval to create two (2) lots and a residence on an internal private road. Property is located on approximately 6.89 acres zoned RA (Rural Area) and is described as Tax Map 44-Parcel 4A located on State Route 676 (Woodlands Road) approximately 1,000 feet east from its intersection with Beaumont Farm Road. This property is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and is designated as Rural Area in Rural Area 1 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as presented. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 228 cm Item Requesting Deferral: ZMA 99-09 Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge (Sign #53) Petition by Westminster Canterbury to amend the existing Planned District (ZMA 97-03) to allow for additional independent professional office buildings along the frontage of Route 250 East. The site is on a 7.65-acre portion of Westminster Canterbury zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development, and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A and 55A5, is located on the northern side of Route 250 East, in front of Westminster Canterbury. This site is located in Urban Area 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, which is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Staff requests deferral to the November 16`h, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of deferral of ZMA 99-09 to November 16th' 1999. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing Items: SP 99-58 250 West Craft Barn (Sign #51 & 52) Request for a special use permit to allow sales of handcrafted items in accordance with Section 10.2.2.36 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for gift, craft and antique shops by special user permit in the Rural Areas. The property, described as tax Map 57, parcel 81, contains 2.963 acres, and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West), at the intersection with Gillums Ridge Road. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, in Rural Area 3. Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to resume sales of handcrafted and seasonal items at this location; staff has reviewed the request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval with conditions provided. Mr. Benish said that the existing Crafters' Gallery building is located on a parcel that also contains a private residence; a special use permit was issued in 1974 for sales of handcrafted items, at which time a condition was placed that is not enforceable by the county — to grant administrative approval after the 10-year period of the original condition. He reported that the applicant is proposing to limit activities on -site to 3-4 days per season and up to one time per month, depending on the pace of business. Mr. Benish noted that there is a condition that addresses frequency of operation; based on that time of operation, VDOT has waived any improvements for commercial entrance standards on the site. Mr. Rieley said he noticed that VDOT's reason for relaxing the commercial entrance requirements, setback and paving had to do with the limited amount of use, and noted that this is not reflected in the recommended conditions of approval. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 229 14ftw Mr. Benish responded that Condition #1 references the application — Attachment B — which states that the intent is to operate during limited times. He suggested that the condition could be reworded to specifically explain the intended operating hours. Mr. Rooker said that if it were cited directly, another condition would probably need to be added because there are other things contained in the application that need to be captured as well. Mr. Benish suggested a statement saying "open 3 to 4 days per season, and not to exceed 1 weekend per month," which would result in about 24 days per year. Noting Jeff Thomas' memorandum, Mr. Loewenstein said it appears from the language in the memo that the decision from VDOT was based on the shop being open 3 to 4 days per season, or 16 days per year. Mr. Loewenstein asked if VDOT understood there would be as many as 8 additional days. Mr. Benish replied that staff had received correspondence from Bob Ball at VDOT that says "the above referenced application has been amended to limit retail use at a site to a maximum of one weekend per month." He added that with that in mind, VDOT agreed to the same conditions and will not require modification to the entrance. Mr. Loewenstein suggested working that language into the condition. Public comment was invited. The applicant, Byron Burke, a partner in the business, stated that the barn is planning to be used to showcase the work of two potters without a typical retail approach, with just seasonal sales. Mr. Burke said that Bob Livey, who owns the property, ran the gallery for 22+ years, and received beautification awards from the county for his work. He added that the only concern has been from VDOT regarding the entrance improvements, which should have been done when VDOT improved the main road. Mr. Rooker asked if there was a requirement that the entrance be moved. Mr. Benish answered that the condition was waived based on the amount of operation, adding that the property is 35-40 feet from the Route 250 intersection. Mr. Thomas asked if the 1800's barn was still on the property. Mr. Burke replied that the foundation for the barn has been there since the 1860's, with the actual barn structure put on in 1910. Mr. Livey commented that the property is not registered as a historic site, and noted that the foundation dates from the 1860's, with the existing barn built around the turn of the century. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 230 4%W1 Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Burke if he felt the limitation of one weekend per month or 24 days per year was overly restrictive. Mr. Burke said, "It is overly restrictive, but we'll have to abide by it. If it gets to the point where we're wildly successful, I guess we'll have to do this again." Mr. Finley asked if the applicant would have to come back through the special use permit process if the business were very successful. Mr. Benish replied that a new application would need to be submitted to amend the condition which restricts the days of operation. Mr. Finley asked how often the business was open when it operated before. Mr. Burke said that for the 22 years the business was previously open, it operated six days a week. Mr. Rieley asked if the conditions could be written so that if the applicant met the VDOT requirements they would automatically be in compliance with the special use permit. Mr. Kamptner said the condition could be written to allow that. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant could operate six days a week if VDOT standards were met. Mr. Benish replied that staff did not evaluate this for daily operation, but instead considered the application within the limited time frame of operation. No further public comment was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rieley suggested that a condition could restrict operation to two weekends per month, but the condition would be removed if VDOT commercial entrance standards are met. He noted that Gillums Ridge Road is very lightly traveled, and the access from this property onto Gillums Ridge Road is not problematic. "If the business is successful, it would keep the applicant from having to come back and amend the special use permit that in all likelihood [would only include the stipulation] that you have to put a commercial entrance in." Mr. Loewenstein asked if the other four conditions would also be applied. Mr. Rieley agreed. Mr. Benish suggested that the applicant have the option of a seasonal event lasting longer than one weekend, and suggested language of 3 to 4 days per month or no more than one weekend per month. "We don't want to lock them in to just a weekend solely." Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 231 V%W Mr. Rooker suggested stating a limitation of 24 days per year, and letting the applicant decide what days they are, with the condition being removed if commercial entrance requirements are met. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-58 with conditions presented by staff, and an additional condition stating "the Craft Barn may be open not more than 24 days per year; but the Craft Barn may be open every day if the owner installs a commercial entrance satisfying VDOT's `Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways."' The motion passed unanimously. Regular Items: SUB 99-220 Northwoods Preliminary Plat Request for preliminary plat approval to create two (2) lots and a residence on an internal public road which will be dedicated to public use. Property is located on approximately 8.00 acres zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 4C located south of State Route 677 (Old Ballard Road) approximately 500 feet west from its intersection with West Leigh Drive. This property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is designated as Rural Area 3 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Amante presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing a 3-lot subdivision on approximately 8 acres on Route 677 — Old Ballard Road. She noted that it is a by -right division, with 3 lots on a public road, explaining that usually it would be approved administratively, but two adjacent property owners have called it up to the Commission for discussion. Referencing a map presented, Ms. Amante said that the adjacent property owner across the street was concerned about headlights shining into their windows at night, but the applicant shifted the entrance alignment to the west to try to avoid that. She added that another property owner was concerned about their well location and possible runoff from the public road; staff has looked at the situation and feels confident that any runoff from the road would be carried through the ditches into a water quality holding. Ms. Amante added that a natural grade would also carry water away from the well. Ms. Amante said that VDOT and the applicant are concerned over putting a public road in, and would rather see a private road, but the applicant has not requested one. She added that if the applicant were to come back with a private road request, Planning would be agreeable to recommending approval. Mr. Rooker asked if addition of a private road would require another appearance before the Commission. Ms. Amante said if the applicant were to come back, they would have to make the justification as stated in the subdivision ordinance. Public comment was invited. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 232 :.449W The applicant's representative, Roger Ray — a land surveyor and planner — addressed the Commission, explaining that the present owners have elected to divide the parcel into three lots. He said that they have worked closely with county staff to meet the standards of design as set forth in the ordinance. Mr. Ray added that there has been some discussion with the Site Review Committee and with staff about the use of a public versus private road; he noted that the county ordinance set the standard of design as a public road, with a private road by special permission. He said that the applicant wrote Mr. Cilimberg a letter dated October 19th stating that he would be amenable to doing a private road, but would like in the short term just to have a road approved. Mr. Ray added that it would be much more "friendly" to have a private road instead, and for the time being the standard of design with a public road has been met. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Ray to talk about the private road and how it might better fit the circumstances. Mr. Ray said the applicant elected to put in a public road because it is by -right, and a private road is at the Commission's discretion. "He did not want to take the chance of rejection because you may not want a private road." Mr. Ray added that the applicant does believe that a private road is the best road for the area. Mr. Loewenstein asked about maintenance of the private road. Mr. Ray responded that the ordinance requires a standard maintenance agreement if they pursue the fir, private road, which would be the financial responsibility of the property owners. He added that the commercial entrance connecting to Route 677 would need to be built to VDOT standards, and the internal portion would need to be built to Albemarle County private road standards. in Mr. Rieley emphasized that there is not an application for a private road now before the Commission. "I think we have to act on what we have before us." Mr. Rooker commented that it is unfortunate that there is not a private road planned at this time. Mr. Ray mentioned that the correspondence between the applicant and Mr. Cilimberg seemed to indicate that the public road would be acceptable for the time being, noting that the information from the Planning staff was not received until the day before this meeting, which did not leave sufficient time to make changes. Mr. Ray confirmed that VDOT did recommend a private road. Mr. Rooker noted that procedurally, the application as it stands must be voted on. He suggested that the Commission act on what is before them, and note in the record that it might be appropriate for the applicant to consider coming back with an amendment or special use permit request for a private road as a separate item. Mr. Ray said that he would recommend to the applicant that a private road be pursued. Mr. Loewenstein asked if a deferral would be possible under the circumstances. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 233 '114NO, Mr. Kamptner explained that the ordinance requires a written request, and a deferral could work if the applicant will submit one, and work with Mr. Ray and staff and deal with an alternative. Mr. Rieley pointed out that the criteria in the ordinance is pretty specific regarding when a private road may be approved. "If we don't have that information before us, I don't think we can discuss it." Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "We're all in agreement that a private road makes more sense in this particular case. If a deferral is possible, I think it would be up to the applicant to decide about, if the timetable allows that." Mr. Rieley suggested that Commissioners go ahead and act on this, as it won't slow the applicant down if he wants to make application for a private road, and that way he'll know one way or another on the by -right subdivision. Mr. Rooker said that a private road might solve some of the issues that the neighbors saw in the application. "If the applicant can make the technical showing that's required by the ordinance ... we should act on the application before us, and then if he wants to come back later and he can make the technical showing the ordinance requires, we would be happy to entertain that." Mr. Nitchmann asked if there would be another fee imposed if the applicant were to apply for a private road. Mr. Kamptner said that the fee is tied to the cost of inspecting the private road, and he confirmed that the fee would have been incurred if the application included a private road request this time around. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Amante added that Planning staff does recommend approval of the public road as it stands, noting the several conditions as outlined in the staff report. She asked that condition I c be stricken. Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SUB 99-220 with conditions as presented, and condition 1-C stricken at staff s request. Mr. Rieley pointed out that in the letters sent from residents, concerns were raised of a general nature not within the Commission's purview because this is a by -right subdivision. Mr. Rooker said that staff has addressed those points, and there have been some accommodations made. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 234 cm Old Business Mr. Rooker asked if there had been any progress in setting up a joint meeting with the city to discuss the corner of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Finley said that he and Planning staff are in the process of setting the meeting up, and asked fellow Commissioners to give him ideas as to what they would like to discuss. Mr. Benish said there have been three topics identified over the past three months: the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 corridor issue; the City is interested in discussing Greenway planning; and regulation of communications towers. Mr. Rooker suggested discussion of coordinating Entrance Corridor/ARB criteria. DISC Presentation Ms. Echols gave a presentation on the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee, explaining that this report gives a glimpse into the contents of the end report, which is expected to be done sometime in March. She added that there will be an interim report, but that it is still under revision at this time. Ms. Echols introduced Eric Strucko, DISC Committee Co -Chairman. Mr. Strucko recognized Mr. Bob Watson and Ms. Katie Hobbs, DISC members attending the Commission meeting. He presented a history of DISC, outlining its composition, goals, mission, and accomplishments from a written report (Attachment "A"). Ms. Echols mentioned that Bruce Dotson, a former Commission member, and Pete Anderson both serve on the DISC Committee. She emphasized that the purpose of the study is to make recommendations as to how the development areas should develop, and to make recommendations on how to master plan each development area. Ms. Echols said that the Land Use Plan suggests that new development be at a higher density than at present to prevent sprawl, and the quality of new development must have a positive impact on existing development, and master planning is needed to achieve a higher quality of new development. She noted that the goals for the development areas are: infill, rather than sprawl; new construction that respects its surroundings; redevelopment rather than abandonment of structures; opportunities for self-sufficiency within a geographic area. Ms. Echols presented an image of a village in Scotland, which contains distinct development areas surrounded by rural land, as an example of what DISC would like for Albemarle. Ms. Echols said that DISC is interested in seeing more narrow streets, houses that come closer to the road, sidewalks, curb & gutter, and street trees. Mr. Rooker said that the concept of street trees has come up before, but there have been problems with working with VDOT on location of utility lines. Ms. Echols responded that the first development that proffered street trees that has a subdivision plat in it — Wayland's Grant — is almost ready to be approved. She said that it is not an easy process to get street trees in the right-of-way, noting that some of the challenges faced with placing street trees Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 235 had to do with the drainage structures and the separation with the water and sewer lines. Ms. Echols said that staff has worked diligently with the Service Authority and VDOT to figure out how it will be done. DISC hopes that in the future, this would be made easier, perhaps by some changes in the regulations, and better "meeting of the minds" with different agencies. She added that paths where people walk are also important to DISC, as are places people can walk to. Ms. Echols said that DISC would like to see open space within public view and accessibility, unlike many current projects which puts the open space behind the lots. Presenting a Montgomery County, Maryland example, Ms. Echols said that DISC has emphasized having "affordability with dignity" to provide decent housing at affordable rates. She noted that Montgomery Co. has a mandatory affordable housing ordinance that DISC is not recommending for Albemarle at this time — although they feel that more attention must be paid to finding ways of providing affordable housing in the county with increased development standards. She said that DISC believes that more public view of the street is important, as is the implementation of "Hollywood Drive," with connected garages and shared driveways. Ms. Echols said that DISC is emphasizing the arrangement of the house to the street so that the house can look out on the street, and there will be opportunities for people to interact more with their neighbors rather than be set back so far from their neighbors due to garage placement in front of homes. She added that parking in commercial areas is also of concern to DISC, with the emphasis on parking placement to the rear and sides of buildings. DISC would also like to see more opportunities for alleys, and Wayland's Grant and Springridge will provide alleys, which would also allow for utilities to be in the back, and driveways to be off of the alleys. DISC proposes redevelopment instead of abandonment of buildings, and firmly believes that the form of development must change before you can get the density that's proposed in the Land Use Plan, with the form supporting the kind of development that the community is looking for. DISC has set goals for the Neighborhoods within Development Areas to include a mix of uses: residences, shops, employment centers and parks, construction with respect to terrain, livable streets — that are parts of neighborhoods, with low design speeds rather than being throughways. She said that curb & gutter is important for the urban form. Sidewalks and street trees are also important. Livable streets would have interconnections rather than relying on an arterial collector system with cul-de-sacs, and believes that interconnections are one of most important items for the new neighborhoods. Mr. Rooker said that public road requirements from VDOT have made it difficult to create "livable streets," adding that "it seems to be very hard to meet those standards and incorporate low design speeds." Mr. Benish said that one problem Albemarle has faced with interconnections is there are not enough of them, and the traffic modeling boosts the volume on a given road because there are not enough other valves to keep the traffic volume down. Ms. Echols said that with up to 400 vehicle trips per day, a narrow road is acceptable, but when the range is 400 — 4000, a much larger street is required. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 236 cm Mr. Rooker suggested getting VDOT to reconsider those requirements and possibly create some intermediate levels between 400 and 4,000. "That's a huge step up." Ms. Echols said that after DISC completes their work, they will be recommending that the county work with VDOT to achieve the county's goals. She mentioned that changes are occurring because of subdivision developments, but added, "that's a hard way for development to take place." Ms. Echols said that the developers on the DISC Committee expressed frustration that it is easier to develop by -right than to work long-term with VDOT. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Virginia Association of Counties might have an interest in some of the recommendations made regarding design standards for public roads that serve neighborhoods. He said that it may need to be approached legislatively. Ms. Echols said that there are neo-traditional standards in the VDOT manual, but they are not used much in the county because they are not perceived to be "tried and true." Mr. Benish said that standard policy changes are very slow in taking place. Ms. Echols continued with the presentation, stating that paths and sidewalks that connect residential areas to commercial uses and that connect employment centers to commercial uses and back to residential areas are important to DISC. Greenways would be places where open spaces would connect and provide paths between development areas and along environmentally sensitive areas. She said that affordability is a goal for the neighborhoods, as is useable open space, public and private parks, and parks in open space within walking distance of residences, noting that multi- family developments require recreational area, but single-family developments don't require any kind of recreational area or open space. The DISC findings emphasize that the principle challenge is that Albemarle County relies on VDOT to maintain streets and roads, and VDOT standards don't easily accommodate the model, especially with the interconnections and street widths. Ms. Echols said that the neighborhood model suggests a need for more public investment in infrastructure; zoning and subdivision ordinances need modification to achieve the developments shown in DISC's goals; the Committee also believes that it is important to educate the residents and land developers on the benefits of this type of development. Ms. Echols concluded that DISC is in the process of developing specific recommendations and strategies and working on ways to market the vision, with anticipated completion date of March 2000. She said that DISC believes it is possible to achieve the goals of urban, livable development areas and undeveloped rural areas through this process. Mr. Anderson said that the principles the University is using in its planning are very similar to the principles DISC is emphasizing. Mr. Finley asked if it would require additional cost to fulfill the DISC vision. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 237 Mr. Strucko responded that it should be considered an investment to avoid unnecessary costs in the future, to plan infrastructure to avoid costly repairs and corrections in the future. Mr. Rooker commented that the DISC -recommended development would permit more dense developments to be built in the infill area, and might end up being revenue positive for developers. He noted that now, whenever there is an infill area proposed, the pressure is to lower the density. "With smarter development techniques, we could end up with pleasing developments that don't shock the surrounding neighborhoods as much and yet provide for higher density and ultimately more revenue." Mr. Strucko mentioned that DISC Committee members are sensitive to market forces, as the neighborhood designs recommended meet a natural pre -market demand, as well as offering a financial incentive to the builders and developers. Mr. Rooker asked if DISC was making recommendations regarding infrastructure improvements. Mr. Strucko responded that DISC is emphasizing master planning in designated growth areas, ensuring that you have a plan in place when infrastructure is needed, so that residential development and infrastructure are built concurrently. Mr. Finley noted that there were no farmers on the DISC Committee. Mr. Strucko said that DISC focused solely on the designated growth areas, although certain members on the committee wanted to venture into the rural areas; however, the charge of the Committee was to examine just the development areas. He added that there has been discussion of having a "RISC" committee to address rural area initiatives. Mr. Benish emphasized that the ultimate goal of DISC is to implement a growth management policy, although some discussion of the relationship between growth and development areas is important. Ms. Echols mentioned that DISC will have some illustrations of different ways that the buffer between development are rural areas can be treated. Mr. Nitchmann asked for more information regarding a "Master Plan." Mr. Strucko responded that a master planning concept would focus on the seven neighborhoods, the communities, and the village within the development areas. He said that participation in the master planning exercise would be similar to the composition of the DISC Committee, with architects, developers, landowners, residents, planners, etc. look at the area in question and lay out a plan as to how it should be developed. Mr. Nitchmann asked if part of the DISC Committee's charter was to review some of the zoning rules and regulations currently in place that make it easier for developers to develop in the rural areas. Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 238 Mr. Strucko said that the development community representatives on DISC made it clear that it is a lot easier for them to develop in the rural areas and develop than to cut through the red tape of the growth area to get things done. He noted that the detail of DISC's work is in the growth area policy. Mr. Nitchmann said that he hoped there would be a way to encourage development in the infill areas, adding that there needs to be reconsideration of grading on 25% slopes, etc.. Mr. Strucko said that the zoning ordinance changes that may result from DISC should make it easier to develop in the growth areas, adding that there is enough land in the designated growth areas to sustain development until the year 2015. Ms. Echols mentioned that one suggestion the consultant made regarding the build -out was to re- designate some commercial and industrial land for residential land. Mr. Rieley commended Ms. Echols, Mr. Strucko, Ms. Hobbs, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Watson, etc. on their work for DISC. He said that one of the great opportunities of developing in the growth areas is being able to develop in patterns that will — to some extent — free residents of dependence on private automobiles. Mr. Rieley said that working through the intransigence of VDOT is a major obstacle, but mentioned that several years ago there was a lowering of standards for subdivision streets to the current 18-foot street with lower grade paving and much tighter vertical curves. He emphasized that with the right support, changes can be made relatively quickly. Mr. Rieley added, "If we are going to build the kinds of communities we're talking about, we can't do it out of the current VDOT standard book. It has to change, and there's no reason we shouldn't make a strong and effective case to get [the standards] changed. The wonderful cross-section of street — tree lawn — sidewalk — front yard — building [presents difficulties with respect to locating utilities outside of the VDOT right-of-way, but one of the easiest solutions — that of running the utilities in common open space is prohibited not by an outside agency, but by Albemarle County regulations. Lots can't front on common open space; they must front on a road.] We can fix that. We could do that immediately." Mr. Rieley also said that the requirement that the proximity between the residential and commercial be more than 50 feet may need to be changed to accommodate the mixed -use environment that DISC is supporting. He stated that the placement of the development area boundaries also needs to be re- evaluated during the next Comprehensive Plan review. "If [those lines] are going to be hard and if treating the edges is very important ... I think they need to be very specifically defined as they haven't been in the past. They need to be reasonable, and they need to be keyed to these edge principles." Mr. Rieley also agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that the 25% slope designation, particularly in the growth areas, needs to be relaxed. Mr. Strucko presented copies of the interim report presented to the Board of Supervisors. (Attachment "B"). Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 239 Mr. Rooker stated that if DISC comes out with specific recommendations regarding changes of VDOT design standards, it would be extremely helpful because it would go to the Board of Supervisors in the form of a recommendation, could be brought up in legislative sessions with the Board and local legislators, and could be brought up with VACO. "If we don't have specifics, we're not going to be able to get that kind of reaction necessary to carry any momentum forward.... perhaps someone could take the general recommendations and turn them into specific recommendations for changes in the design standards." Ms. Echols mentioned that the Institute of Transportation Engineers has put together a neo- traditional street guide that addresses those issues. She added that in addition to VDOT concerns, fire & rescue officials have been hesitant to support narrower streets because of access problems. Mr. Finley thanked the DISC committee members and Ms. Echols for their work. New Business Mr. Kamptner presented summaries of Virginia Supreme Court cases issued recently: He reported that in one case, the court ruled that privately constructed, maintained and owned towers in VDOT rights -of -way were subject to local zoning authority. Mr. Kamptner also responded to a question from the Commission regarding the County's authority to regulate aesthetics in relation to towers. Mr. Kamptner stated that the issues typically related to towers pertain to their height, bulk and location, and the County is expressly enabled by the Virginia Code to regulate these factors. These factors are different from aesthetic factors such as the color and design of structures determined to not be enabled by the Virginia Supreme Court in a case from the Williamsburg area. Mr. Kamptner also reported that a federal appeals court decided in a recent wireless case from Pennsylvania that a township did not prohibit service even though the township's ordinance limited towers to a specific zoning district. Mr. Benish presented a draft of the CIP Budget, reminding Commissioners that they had initially indicated a desire to hold worksessions — but not a public hearing — on the CIP prior to its forwarding to the Board of Supervisors with Commission comments. Commissioners agreed to proceed in this fashion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Commissioners moved, seconded and unanimously approved adjournment of their meeting to 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 10, 1999 for a Joint Work session on Rural Areas with the Board of Supervisors. V/ Wayne Cilimber Secretary ( Planning Commission — November 9, 1999 240