HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 07 1998 PC Minutes7-7-98 1
JULY 7, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 7, 1998,
to the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr.
Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr. Maynard Sipe, Planner;
and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioners Tice, Nitchmann and
VVashington.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of
the May 19th and June 23rd meetings were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the July 1st Board of Supervisors meeting.
ZMA 98-09 International Cold Storage Company, Inc. - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 8.412 acres from LI Light Industrial to Hi Heavy Industrial. Property, described as
Tax Map 109, Parcel 33, is located about 0.1 miles west of U.S. Rt. 29 on Heards Mountain
Road in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not in a designated development area
and is recommended as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the May 19,
1998 Commission meeting.
The applicant was requesting deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the applicant's request for
withdrawal of ZMA 98-09 be approved. The motion passed unanimous!y.
SP 98-18 South Fork Soccer Field - Proposal to locate 5 soccer fields, an approximately
2,000 square toot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned
RA, Rural Areas. [This activity requires a special use permit in accord with Section 10.2.2.4
of the Zoning Ordinance.] The property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C, is
located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Road, approximately 1.1 miles east of
Route 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated
growth aCea.
and
SP 98-22 South Fork Soccer Field - (Same description as above) This activity requires a
special use permit in accord with 30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance due to activity in the
floodplain of the Rivanna River.
and
/!(
7-7-98 2
SDP 98-055 South Fork Soccer Field Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 5 soccer
fields, an approximately 2,000 square foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on
approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
All three of these items were deferred from the June 9th Commission meeting.
These items were again being deferred to August 4, 1998.
Public comment was invited on all three. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-18 be deferred to August 4,
1998. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-22 be deferred to August 4,
1998. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SDP 98-055 be deferred to August
4, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-24 Mundie Trucking - Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B for storage of
dump trucks in an existing garage. The applicant proposes to store and perform routine
maintenance on dump trucks. The site, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located on 4.69 acres at
3061 Burnley Station Road. The property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 23A, is located
just off State Route 641 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated
development area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to August 4.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-24 be deferred to August 4,
1998. The motion passed unanimously.
DESIGN RESOURCES CENTER AT UVA - Presentation by Ken Schwartz (Director of the
Center)
Mr. Schwartz described the origin of the DRC, its function, funding, and a recent visit to
Chattanooga, TN (which has a very successful Design Center). He described the current
work of the Center, and how it may be able to assist the County in planning issues. The
Mission Statement of the Center is as follows: "The Design Resources Center will be an
independent, community -based resource to empower citizens of the greater Charlottesville -
Albemarle Region with the necessary design and planning tools to assess, envision and
enhance the vitality and sustainability of our community. The Center will use design as a tool
to foster productive dialogue among the public sector, the university administration, the
private sector, developers, and the public at large about complex issues related to growth,
117
7-7-98 3
development, urban design, and their impacts, both short and long term, on the community
and our economy " He listed the fnllowing as more specific goals of the Center:
"To render visible design and planning issues critical to the Charlottesville and
Albemarle Region in a neutral way.
--Tn foster socially rt�cpnnSiblF? envirnnmPntaiiv intellinent r�rnnnmir .1. owth.
--To help the community identify viable alternatives to single -occupancy vehicles and
new road construction.
--Tn create a visible public place for residents of the region to view and discuss
current development proposals and, when, appropriate, to suggest alternative scenarios and
to portray them in an accessible way.
--To explore uses for key vacant and ender -utilized sites-
--To provide resources and educational materials about design and development to
the public at large and to help publicize work that is already underway.
--To, eventually, provide technical expertise on best practices."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Loach, a citizen of Crozet, addressed the Commission. He said the Crozet
community wants to be pro -active in the planning process and one of the main concerns is
good design.
RIVANNA RIVER BASIN PROJECT - Presentation by Russell Perry
Mr. Perry described this project, its findings, and summarized the recommendations that
were made by the Committee as a result of the findings. Most of the information provided by
Mr. Perry's presentation is covered in the brochure and Summary which are made a part of
these minutes as Attachments A and B.
Answers to Commission questions included the following:
--Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Perry's opinion of the County Engineering Department's policy,
on projects which are located close to streams, "that it is better to let the runoff go into the
river immediately, unchecked, (because) if detained it enters the streams later when other
water is arriving at the same time, exacerbating the overall flow." Mr. Perry said the ideal
situation is to determine "what the site would have done in a pre -settlement condition (when
it was stable)." He said: "We would want to give the water as much of a chance to
percolate as we can. Simply retaining it and then flushing it out in large quantities at some
later time is an imperfect compromise. I think it is slowing it down, to a certain extent, but
the phenomenon that you are suggesting, which is one of timing and catching up with the
flow that is coming from upstream, is a real concern. I think if we were doing more with
really strongly vegetated buffers, allowing water to sheet flow through planted material... that
is going to give us a much more successful solution, to the extent that it is possible on a
given site." Mr. Rieley said: "So you think we should be thinking about retention more and
detention less." Mr. Perry responded affirmatively. Mr. Rieley agreed.
--Mr. Rooker asked about the makeup of the impervious surfaces in the county, i.e.
"how much is road, how much is parking lots, etc."? Mr. Perry could not answer the question
// Y
7-7-98
4
but thought it would be possible to obtain that information by querying the CIS data. Mr.
Rooker thought this would be helpful information.
--Mr. Finley asked if there is much difference between row crops and no -till farming
practices vs. traditional tilling in terms of runoff. Mr. Perry responded: "From what I've read,
the no -till has less runoff, but I'm not an expert.... Heavily grazed pasture creates very quick
runoff."
--Mr. Finley asked if any farmers had participated in this project. Mr. Perry responded
affirmatively.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the Commission could receive copies of the specific 72
recommendations which the Committee developed. Mr. Rooker said a summary of the data
findings would be helpful also. Mr. Perry said the complete report, which is quite extensive,
is available from the Water Resources Manager.
FAMILY DIVISIONS AND PRIVATE ROADS - Commission Discussion
This topic was generated by questions raised by Mr. Tice in an e-mail transmission to Mr.
Kamptner dated June 19, 1998. Mr. Kamptner responded to Mr. Tice's questions in a memo
dated July 7, 1998, which was just made available to the Commission at this meeting. (See
Attachments C and D to these minutes.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained: "In some of the cases reviewed by the Planning Commission in the
last several months that involve the potential of family division and road standards associated
with family divisions, the question has arisen as to exactly how the Subdivision Ordinance
works as it pertains to the family division and the decisions that are made on those divisions
and the private roads within. More recently, Mr. Tice had requested of staff that the various
subdivisions and family divisions that were in areas that might be covered by the Mountain
Ordinance provisions, be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and it is within the right of
the Planning Commission to review family divisions. The Commission, generally, has not
done that in the past. That's been a responsibility generally undertaken by the Agent.
Included within that responsibility, by the Ordinance, has been review of any private roads
that might be associated with a family division. The reason we wanted to bring this before
you now is to explain first how the process works, what the Ordinance allows for, and what
discretion, if any, the Planning Commission would have that the Agent, which is me and the
Planning staff, would have. We've got these divisions, and we could bring every one of
them to you and have you look at them, and we could begin talking about them tonight and
could do the same next week, and the week after, etc., but we believe what you are able to
do in addressing them and what we are able to do is no different. We have what has
traditionally been a rather short turn -around that we have provided for family divisions in
review, because they have been handled at the administrative level. The Ordinance actually
says that we are to review family divisions in five days. That doesn't mean we are supposed
to sign them in five days, but it certainly does mean that we are to treat them in as
expeditious a fashion as we can, based on what is proposed in that family division and what
Aft needs to be addressed by the surveyor and the property owner in what they have provided
to us. What we were hoping to be able to do tonight was present to you the basic picture of
the review of family divisions, particularly as regards to private roads because that seems to
117
7-7-98 5
be, maybe, the most critical element of the family division that is within our purview to review
and could be within yours, and, hopefully, with the understanding of what the family division
review process involves, you could give us an indication of whether, in fact, you need to see
each one of the divisions we have before us, or whether we can move forward. We need to
clear several of them off the table. We need to go ahead and deal with them." Later in the
discussion Mr. Sipe reported there are presently 7 requests for family divisions which need to
be acted upon, 5 of which meet Mr. Tice's criteria for being called before the Commission.
(He did not say what those criteria were.) Of those 5 requests, the "oldest one", for R.H.
Walden, will have been in the hands of staff 60 days on July 15th.
Because the Commission had not had time to read Mr. Kamptner's memo prior to the
meeting, and also because Mr. Tice was not present at the meeting, Mr. Loewenstein
suggested the discussion should be delayed. Though it was decided that a complete
discussion would be delayed, some discussion did take place and the highlights of that
discussion are reflected in the transcription which follows.
Because of the amount of time which a number of family division requests have been
pending, Mr. Cilimberg stressed that a decision must be made no later than next week, i.e. a
decision to allow staff to deal with the requests administratively, or if the decision is made
that the Commission is going to review the requests, that review must take place no later
than next week.
Mr. Finley said he had not received Mr. Tice's e-mail. He asked what questions were raised.
Mr. Kamptner said Mr. Tice raised two main questions (1) Does the Commission have the
right or obligation to review family divisions with private roads? and (2) In reviewing family
divisions with private roads, what criteria (or how much discretion) does the Commission (or
Agent) have?"
Mr. Kamptner said Mr. Tice's e-mail sets forth his personal analysis of the questions. Mr.
Kamptner said: In working with Planning staff, we knew they have applied and interpreted
the Subdivision Ordinance in a different way and the scope of review for private roads with
family divisions is quite narrow. So, when I went through the analysis, dissecting the
Subdivision Ordinance --which is what you have to do see how the cross-references and
everything fits together --I answered the two questions." Mr. Kamptner's memo answered
the two questions as follows:
(1) The commission's right to review family divisions is set forth in Section 18-13(a),
which allows the commission the right to review a family division. However, Section
18-13(a) also provides that the director of planning and community development,
acting as the commission's agent, has the primary responsibility for reviewing and
approving applications for family divisions.
(2) The authority given to the commission to review a family division does not expand
its scope of review to include any matters not expressly at issue in a family division.
Therefore, the scope of the commission's review of a family division is quite limited,
and is governed by sections 18-57(a) through (i), which identify the applicable
requirements for a family division. Otherwise, a family division is exempt from the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
/aW
7-7-98 6
Mr. Kamptner said the scope of the Commission's review is very limited and parallels the
scope of review that the Agent has, the Agent being the Director of Planning. He said the
scope of the review is defined in Section 18-57(e) which sets forth the five provisions of 18-
36 that are to be looked at. "18-36(a) is a statement about the approval process. It does
refer to the Commission and approval, but when you relate that back to section 18-13(a), you
see that for family divisions the Director of Planning is the Agent for the Commission, so you
have to read those sections together to have those make sense."
Referring to section 18-36(b)(1)(a), as related to private roads, Mr. Rieley again, as he has
on previous occasions, expressed concern about the statement "...significant degradation
shall mean an increase of 30% in the total volume of grading for construction of public
roads, as compared to private roads." He said: "I have been concerned about this for some
time. My concern is that the Engineering Department does not do that. It is very clear what
it says needs to be done, and they absolutely do not do it. What Engineering does is take
the difference in the road width, between 14 and 18 feet, and then to say that is 29%
difference so all we need is one more percent." Mr. Cilimberr, said that section is not a part
of the review which goes into family division by the reference to private road sections in the
Subdivision Ordinance as to family divisions. Mr. Rieley said: "Except as it relates to any
private road, right?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "Any private road that is part of a
subdivision." Mr. Sipe interjected: " i think that really gets at part of the issue, i.e. `only a
very few. select parts of the private road -section of the Ordinance applies to exempt plats or
family divisions." Mr. Cilimberg added: "In other words, that is not an area that we review
for family divisions." Mr. Loewenstein said: "I think that is, in part, what has driven Mr.
Tice's inquiry." Mr. Cilimberg added: "Just because 18-36(a) gets referenced, it doesn't
open up the whole section of private roads for application to family division. It only allows for
the references to be used, which are the ones mentioned in Mr. Kamptner's memo..
18-36(d)2, 3, 4 and (e)1 "
Referring to page 2 of Mr. Kamptner's memo [under the paragraph headed Section 18-36 a ,
Mr. Rieley asked, if "...the word 'commission,' as used in section 18-36(a), also means
'agent,'..."then "why doesn't it say 'agent.?„ Mr. Kamptner responded: "Because 1R-36 is
written to apply to subdivisions generally, to all subdivisions, and the family division
provisions and 18-13(a), which has a provision which deals with family divisions, are, in a
sense, very specific. What this ordinance tries to do is fit the 18-57 provisions and 18-13
provisions, which deal with family divisions and review by the agent, to overlay the 18-36
provisions. They are-, to a certain extent, trying to make it fit. 18-36 is written to apply to
subdivisions. As it is laid out the approval process for a private road is discretionary. It's by
the Commission and you have all these standards that you apply. In looking at family
divisions, you have a very narrow range of review, and that is set out in 18-57(e), and in 18-
13(a) the approval of the family divisions is by the Agent. So when you are looking at the
particular provisions in 18-36 that apply to family divisions, you need to read these provisions
in light of 18-57 and 18-13, which designates the Planning Director as the decision maker,
who is sitting in place of the Commission for these particular types of plats."
Mr. Loewenstein said: "So that means it's all ministerial under 18-36. Is that what you are
saying?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "When you look at the criteria in 18-36(d) 2, 3, 4 and
IAI
7-7-98 7
(e)1, these are very ministerial types of determinations that the agent has to make --whether
or not the Comprehensive Plan shows a public road to be in the approximate location of the
proposed private road, whether or not there is a provision, for ownership of the underlying
fee and the right of access of abetting property owners, whether or not the private road is
designed to not allow through traffic or to intersect public roads only in one location, and, in
(e)1--which is really the only standard that applies to the family division private roads-- the
certification that is noted in Table A in the Subdivision Ordinance. Those are all 'either -or' --
either a fact exists or it doesn't. Just as whether or not any other plat complies with any
particular provision of the Ordinance, it's a ministerial decision. There is no policy making
involved and there is not any real exercise of discretion."
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a state statute which addresses family subdivisions_ Mr.
Kamptner said there are some provisions in the Subdivision Law, but Albemarle is a county
which has much more discretion in how family division provisions are shaped. "We have
much more latitude than most other localities because we are a high -growth county." Mr.
Rooker thought it would be helpful for the Commission to have a copy of the statutes "so we
can see what the underpinnings are to the present ordinances." Mr. Kamptner explained:
"The underpinnings of this ordinance were guided by the older provision, which defines a
member of the immediate family. That is probably one of the most important definitions. ...It
sets forth some other criteria, but we are no longer subject to that limited statutory authority.
We have broader authority now." Mr. Rooker said: "So we could make it broader or
narrower." Mr. Kamptner said: "Yes. We have made it narrower." He explained that in the
last two years the General Assembly has expanded the class of people who are considered
members of the immediate family to include siblings, nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles.
Albemarle did not adopt those changes and the Board is going to consider, next week,
whether to delete spouses, which was added a few years ago.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to have the following statistics, covering the last five
years: number of family subdivision plats that have been approved (Mr. Cilimberg said that
information was previously provided to the Commission just prior to the work on the amendments to
the Subdivision Ordinance.); the number of lots that have been included in those plats; the
number of family divisions by the same family; the number of family division lots for which
building permits have been issued; and a comparison of the building permit names to the
family names for which the subdivisions have been approved. He said: I guess the
question I have is whether or not the policy behind family subdivisions is actually being
served."
Mr. Cilimberg said that is a question the Commission would need to address in proposing
amendments to this Subdivision Ordinance as related to family division. He said the Board
had discussed that same question in a work session last week and they decided to propose
two changes at next week's public hearing related to family divisions. They also said, after
seeing how the family division elements work with those amendments, they way wish to
revisit the issue in a year and potentially make boarder changes to the family division
provisions. He pointed out that that is not the issue before the Commission at this time,
rather "what we are trying to get through here is how we use what is in place --the provisions
that we have right now." T%p provisiQnS are not being amended tonight.
/92
7-7-98 8
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that this issue is before the Commission at this time because Mr. Tice
"called these (family division requests) up." He explained: "What we really wanted to
address is what we, and the Commission, have the opportunity to address in family
divisions, because it is the same. Basically, by the operation of the Ordinance, the
Commission can't do anything, based on the County's Attorney review, that we can't do--(i.e.
the Commission's review is the same as the Agent's). We thought if you could understand
what we look at, and the limitations within which we work, that we may then be able to clear
these family divisions that, obviously, we need to act on. We can do them individually, with
the Commission, and look at each one as we look at them. Or, if you understand that this is
what we're obligated to do under the Ordinance in reviewing each one, you may not want to
see each one of them. ... What Mr. Kamptner has pointed out is that the operation of the
family division section has no discretion built into it. So we feel if we have a family division
plat that is ready to be signed --and we have some that are --that we, or, in turn, you, are
obligated to have that happen. That was the purpose for reviewing this with you."
It was determined that Mr. Tice has not yet seen Mr. Kamptner's written memo.
Mr. Loewenstein said that the request to call these family division requests before the
Commission was made by Mr. Tice and it is something he will need to make a determination
about. Mr. Rooker agreed that Mr. Tice should participate in any decision made by the
Commission.
Owen the fact that the Commission cannot do any more than the staff in the review of family
division requests, Mr. Finley asked why Mr. Tice raised these questions--i.e., what is his
concern? No one could respond to this question.
Mr. Sipe reported there are presently 7 family divisions which need to be acted upon, 5 of
which meet Mr. Tice's criteria for being called before the Commission. One of those, for R.H.
Walden, will be at the 60 day point, on July 15th. He said that though 60 days is the review
pPrnd fnr ci hdivcnn plats, family divisions are normally handled in less than three weeks.
Mr. Sipe said the changes to the family division provisions which the Board is scheduled to
discuss next week, could prevent the approval of 3 of these requests. The Board has
indicated that any changes would apply to all requests. If this were to happen, it would not
promote good public relations for county staff. Mr. Rooker pointed out that all county
residents are the staffs customers, "and not just someone who has proposed a plan."
Mr. Loewenstein asked that staff try to communicate with Mr. Tice as soon as possible, and
with the other absent Commissioners. if, after reading Mr. Kamptner's memo, Mr. Tice still
feels some or all of the pending requests should be reviewed by the Commission, those
which need to be acted upon quickly will be added to next week's agenda. Mr. Cilimberg
says it is staffs hope that the Commission will either (1) "Say 'we understand what you do
and we realize what we can do, and move ahead with whatever is on the table; to whatever
degree it is pertinent for it to be acted upon.' In other words, if it is just sitting there waiting
for you and what you can do is what we can do, then, appropriately, we would like to see
you -say, 'go ahead anal takie the proper action'; or (?) To take those up individually that have
been in process that may be effected by changes next Wednesday night. The first point that
you, a§ a Pommissiop pled p �gmfp�ble with and to yngprstand, is what Mr. Kamptner
%2S
7-7-98 9
has provided you. You just got it this evening, Mr. Tice hasn't seen it and two other
Commissioners have not seen it. That is the starting point for discussion and taking this pup
next Tuesday night. What I would hope to be able to do is at least focus on that and then
get some decision as to what particular plats you want to act on or let us sign. Let's try to
see, first of all, where that gets us in terms of the response that Mr. Kamptner has provided
and target next Tuesday night to get that cleared and then for you to be able to say either
'we want to see those plats' --and we may have a few for you to look at that night that need
to be acted upon --or to say to us 'go ahead and handle them as you would handle them
under the ordinance.' That 's the best we can do."
Mr. Finley expressed concern about the fact that the Commissioner who raised this issue is
not present because he must have had a higher priority, but there are people who are
waiting for action on their requests and those requests are a high priority to those people.
Mr. Loewenstein said he believes the issue can be resolved at next week's meeting, which is
within the time frame described by staff.
Mr. Rieley said he does not want to hold up actions on the pending requests, but he feels,
"on the next level (of discussion), we need a thorough review of the interrelationship of the
family subdivision component of the Ordinance and the private road component, and the
sections that apply and those that don't. A review of that, with the underlying statute would
make a lot sense. Beyond that, I still want to have a conversation about private roads in
general and how they are administered and I don't want to see the emergency be taken care
of and not deal with the more structural issues." He said his main concern is that the private
roads provisions are not being administered as the ordinance says (by the Engineering
Department).
The Chair allowed public comment.
Mr. Wendall Wood addressed the Commission. He expressed serious concerns about the
implications of removing spouses from the family division provisions. He said this will cause
considerable hardship for many families. He questioned how this proposed change had
arisen so suddenly and why the public has not been informed. It was his opinion that a
particular Commissioner's "agenda to stop something was the basis for the delay of the
family division requests and the changes which the Board will be discussing. Mr.
Loewenstein advised Mr. Wood that the proposed changes had not been discussed at the
Commission level. Mr. Wood said he thinks the Commission has an obligation to raise the
question of "what does this mean to Mr. and Mrs. Jones" to the Board.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Rieley suggested Commissioners visit the Red Hill area to view the balloon tests which
two cellular providers are presently conducting in preparation for upcoming tower requests.
/12
7-7-98 10
There was a brief discussion about some type of recognition for the two Commissioners who
had left the Commission at the end of December, 1997.
Mr. Anderson called attention to an article in the July 4th Daily Progress related to the
university's plans for limiting traffic on Massie Road.
Resolution Re: Construction of Towers in VDOT's Right -of -Way -- Mr. Rooker felt it was
important that the Commission make ifs position known on this issue.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that a request be made to the Virginia
Department of Transportation that they, and their customers, submit to the County's Special
Permit process with respect to the erection of towers on VDOT right-of-way within Albemarle
County.
The motion passed by a vote of 3:0:1, with Commissioner Finley abstaining. Mr. Finley
explained that he had abstained because he did not have enough information at this point.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that staff be sure this action is passed on to the Board for their July
8th meeting and that the Board be reminded that there is precedent for this process in that
the University (another State agency) has agreed to follow the County's special permit
process for their projects.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
W
MR
r��drdMAMMA IMilill0
N= ' ":
. K