HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 20 1998 PC Minutesem
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 20, 1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman [joined
meeting late]; Mr. Dennis Rooker, Mr. William Finley, Mr. Rodney Thomas, Mr. William
Nitchmann, and Mr. Samuel Anderson. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner William Rieley.
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was established.
The minutes of October 6, 1998 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, presented a review
of the Board of Supervisors October 14a' meeting, and said that the Board had approved four
items per Commission recommendations: outdoor storage at the Wal-Mart store; the Airport
Road office complex rezoning; the Colonnades Center rezoning, and the Mitchell -Matthews
rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg said that all items included the proffers that Commissioners understood
would be provided at the time they took action.
Work Session — Development Department's 1998-2000 Work Plan
Mr. Cilimberg introduced Mr. Rick Huff, Deputy County Executive, who worked with the
Planning Department on their work plan. Mr. Huff presented a summary of the plan which
highlighted the priorities for Albemarle County's three development departments. He stated that
the plan is a compilation of four very important elements: (1) one-time work plan items, (2)
ongoing work plan items, (3) the out year projects, and (4) the possible zoning text amendments
that staff have identified as recurring issues needing attention.
Mr. Huff asked Commissioners to recognize that staff is challenged to find ways to balance new
unanticipated issues with existing priorities in the workplan. He informed the Commission that
building permit activity has increased this year by 15% over the same period last year; zoning
applications are up; variances are up 37%; rezonings are up 114%; special permits are up 30%;
sign permits are up 12%. Further, their research is showing zoning violations and requests for
investigations of zoning violations are up significantly; zoning complaints are expected to exceed
225 this year, an increase of 20% over the prior year. Mr. Huff added that County Engineering
and Public Works will have reviewed 600 plans this year in support of 65 development projects,
an increase of approximately 10% over the previous year.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Huff stated that the budget process beginning in
December would address the need for additional staff to handle a markedly increased workload.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Huff stated that the issue of using citizen
committees in the planning process is under review, including forming a better definition of
committee roles. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Huff said there is an RFP out for a
pilot mapping project to put tax map parcels onto the computer system; after the results are in,
staff will make projections about the cost effectiveness of that. Mr. Huff added that the "GIS as
3z
a planning tool is here... to stay in terms of our investment in that technology and our staffing to
accommodate that." Mr. Rooker mentioned that Jefferson County, Colorado has been touted as a
locality maximizing their GIS system. In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding
automation of building permits, Mr. Huff stated that all building permits are on a mainframe
%kople computer; the staff goal is to move these to a Local Area Network in a Windows environment, to
make this more "user-friendly for our staff and our customers."
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about additional staff, Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning
Staff level has remained the same this year in terms of full-time permanent, intern and temporary
positions.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Commissioners for additional comments regarding the work plan. Mr.
Nitchmann reiterated that "we need to put some deadlines on some of this committee work .... the
longer it drags on the more staffing it takes and I don't think we come out with as good as a
document as we could if there was some deadline and goal to be working towards."
Consent Agenda: Two (2) Items
SDP 98-128 The Dogg House Minor Site Plan Amendment — request for parallel parking and
SDP 97-124 The Gardens (Hamrick Building) Major Amendment — one way circulation request.
No additional concerns were raised about consent agenda items, and the Commission moved,
seconded and unanimously approved the consent agenda.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if items like this could be moved into administrative approval, but Mr.
Loewenstein said that the zoning ordinance requires the Commission to review them. Mr.
Cilimberg added that staff is planning a follow up to amendments made this year to the zoning
and subdivision ordinance to look at items that could be pulled out and handled. He further
stated that staff wanted to make sure that the administrative process that was just enacted was
working smoothly before making additional suggestions. In response to Mr. Thomas' question,
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the advantage of having administrative items on the consent agenda is
that Commissioners can pull them out for further discussion if warranted.
-------------------------------------------
CPA 98-04 Chapter Two, The Natural Environment
Mary Joy Scala presented the staff report, and referenced the Chapter Two draft Commissioners
already received, which replaces Chapter Two of the 1989 plan. Ms. Scala summarized changes
from the 1989 plan as: (1) sustainability as a new concept which the Commission felt should be
moved up to the front of this Chapter, and that concept is summarized in the mission of the
Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council; (2) physical setting is essentially the same as in the
1989 plan; and (3) the remainder of the Chapter is split into the two headings — "Open Space
Resources" and "Open Space Planning."
Ms. Scala reported that the "Open Space Resources" section contains the same elements:
natural, scenic and historic resources, and said that agricultural and forestry resources would be
included in this Chapter instead of instead of the new "Rural Areas" Chapter as planned because
of public comment that all open space resources should be considered in the same chapter. She
said the natural resources section, as in the 1989 plan, would include water resources, critical
slopes, wooded areas, soil, air and mineral resources. Ms. Scala stated that the new section now
*#WW includes biological (plant and animal) resources, and recommends that (1) the importance of
these resources be recognized, (2) awareness of these resources be built through educational
programs, and (3) a committee be appointed to oversee conducting a biological inventory to be
® 33
integrated into planning. Other new sections are mountains (adopted by the Board in August),
and the dark sky section (implemented in August with adoption of the lighting ordinance).
Ms. Scala reported the scenic resources section emphasizes the use of voluntary measures and
+►design standards and guidelines to maintain the integrity of all county roadways, and also to
identify specific exceptional roadways in the county. She explained that one new strategy is to
analyze two entrance corridors, such as Route 250 West and Route 29 north, by typical sections
and develop guidelines for each section, so that those guidelines can be applied to other entrance
corridors in the county. She said another new strategy regarding scenic streams is to coordinate
scenic stream regulations with the new water resources ordinance.
She reported that the historic resources section Commissioners received has been abbreviated
and contains no new strategies because the Historic Preservation Committee is nearing
completion of its historic preservation plan, which will soon be presented to the Board of
Supervisors to be adopted as a free-standing document part of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms.
Scala said that the agricultural/forestral resources part will be added in the next few weeks; the
actual agricultural forestral uses will be discussed in the Rural Areas Chapter. She suggested
that the entire chapter be adopted after the agricultural/forestry section is completed.
Ms. Scala said the only changes to the Open Space Planning division within the Chapter involve
the goals, objectives and strategies. She reported that staff revised the list of mountains to
incorporate the changes to the contour elevation. She said that the section "Urban Open Spaces"
was included at the request of a Commissioner at the last work session for the purpose of
recognizing all types of urban spaces and providing a structure to urban design. Ms. Scala
informed the Commission that staff has expanded text regarding "Greenways" discussed in the
open space plan to comprise a new section.
Ms. Scala reviewed the staff report Commissioners had received the week preceding the meeting
which discussed the proposed revisions since the August 11`" draft: (1) adding the previously
omitted updated figures on water needs analysis — Black and Veach; (2) inserting the mountain
mass which had been inadvertently omitted; (3) revised the historic section for brevity and
referenced historic preservation plan; (4) added an item to the easement program section stating
staff should evaluate the Preddy Creek property as potential passive recreation area and natural
area.
She said staff is recommending that the Chapter's name be changed from "The Natural
Environment" to "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" to be more inclusive. Ms. Scala
referenced a citizen letter from Tom Olivier regarding justice and equity guidelines, which he
requested be discussed as a part of Chapter Two. She recommended that the Commission hear
public comments and continue discussions and public hearing to a time when the agricultural and
forestral resource section can be adopted within Chapter Two.
In response to Mr. Finley's question about the changes to the chapter, Ms. Scala stated the
Commission last reviewed Chapter Two on April 28, and said the "underlined" phrases and
sections are new, most of which reflect changes suggested by Commissioners. She added that
the historic resource section was not discussed on April 28 because it's just been added in
recently. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about the open space planning text, Ms.
Scala said that all the text regarding open space planning has been reorganized (but not
w significantly changed) to incorporate the Open Space Plan adopted in 1992.
34
Mr. Rooker asked "Except for that and the highlighted things in this, this is the same thing that
came before us in April, that we commented on." Ms. Scala replied "Yes." Mr. Rooker
suggested that on Page 25, second paragraph, the word "efforts" be replaced with "goals."
In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding the time frame of anticipated conclusions of
studies such as the "planning for future water supply" study, Ms. Scala referred the item to David
Hirschmann. Mr. Hirschmann responded that there is a fairly long time line, 5 years or so, on
that particular study. He emphasized that the consultant's study is ongoing, changing every
month, and told Commissioners that it may be possible to include a graph, which would show the
various components of the study, and when they are expected to be completed.
Mr. Finley expressed concern that there are many personal names mentioned within the historic
resources surveys section, and asked if it was normal procedure to include them. Ms. Scala
replied that names are often used to identify a particular survey. Mr. Loewenstein said that using
names is a "fairly standard methodology" in reference to historic resources, but suggested that
perhaps a footnoted bibliography be added at the end to reference these people. Mr. Rooker
further emphasized that the only things having official designation in the plan are the lists of
registered historic properties; the other items are simply descriptions of various studies that have
been done. Mr. Loewenstein clarified that these properties are either registered with the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources and/or the National Register of Historic Places, both of which
use essentially the same guidelines for review.
Mr. Finley observed that "strategies are bearing down more and more on the Monticello
viewshed .... It does in fact affect to some degree decisions we make here as a Commission, but at
what point does the viewshed begin to squash the other kinds of things we've talked about..."
Ms. Scala replied that the intent of the strategies regarding the Monticello viewshed is to
carefully look at existing regulations in relation to what's being developed, and how we can use
them to help protect the viewshed. She further emphasized that these strategies don't establish
any new regulations, but rather suggest a cooperative effort between the developer and
Monticello, and recognize that Monticello does have importance to this county.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that "Monticello is not just an important historical resource, but an
important economic resource as well."
Public comment was invited. Speakers were permitted to speak for three minutes.
Russell Perry, a resident of the City of Charlottesville, spoke as the former co-chair of the
Rivanna River Basin Roundtable, referenced in the Water Resources section.. Mr. Perry said
that the October 1997 plan draft contained a strategy "to review and implement
recommendations of the Rivanna River Basin project as appropriate...." Mr. Perry stated that
those recommendations have been presented to the Commission, and asked Commissioners for
help obtaining the allocation of County resources to actually implement them. He gave
examples: (1) Albemarle County/Mechums River and North Fork study define where the non -
point source pollution is coming from; (2) local governments develop demonstration projects for
planting native vegetation on stream and river banks on public land, and each jurisdiction
establish an annual target on streambank restoration; (3) local governments request that Rivanna
Water and Sewer authority initiate an ongoing study of relationships between instream flow,
biological conditions and reservoir operations. Mr. Perry stressed aggressive water conservation
strategies.
4315
Mr. Tom Olivier of Scottsville addressed the Commission next. He read from a written
statement (Attachment "A"). Ms. Charlotte Graham, President of Citizens for Albemarle
addressed the Commission next. She read from a written statement, and presented additional text
from Citizens for Albemarle (Attachment `B"). Ms. Joy Matthews of the League of Women
Voters addressed the Commission next. She read from a written statement (Attachment "C").
Mr. Bob Watson of the Charlottesville Legislative Action Coalition addressed the Commission
next, and stated that some of the text needed to be changed regarding the status of ordinances
mentioned within the plan; he added that he agrees with Mr. Olivier's statement. Mr. J. J.
Murray addressed the Commission, stating that he endorses the objectives of the Historic
Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan, but deplores the "inadequacies of the strategies"
contained. He referenced his written statement (Attachment "D").
Mr. Loewenstein clarified that "We are not tonight considering an elaborate historic preservation
plan; that has not yet been submitted by the committee, nor an ordinance which is the kind of
regulation to which you refer...."
Ms. Jane Cole of Covesville stated the document is "very well written," and said she was glad to
see biodiversity mentioned within the Plan. She suggested that suppression of alien species be
added to recommendations of things landowners can do to build biodiversity awareness; she
suggested that not only representative natural communities be preserved, especially forests.
Ms. Babette Thorpe of the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission
referencing a written statement (Attachment "E"). Mr. Matt Kayhoe of Charlottesville addressed
the Commission, and said that he was impressed with the scope of the project, and commented
that the term viewshed is relatively new because the problems are new.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about getting an updated copy, Ms. Scala stated that a
revised copy of the Chapter would be provided to Commission members prior to their next
consideration of the item. Mr. Loewenstein said that if the Commission feels it is necessary,
another public hearing should be scheduled. Commissioners agreed that the item needs to be
considered again.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded that Chapter Two of the
Comprehensive Plan be sent back to staff for revisions as discussed to reflect specific concerns
presented by the Commissioners and the public. The item will be brought back to the
Commission for a second public hearing at a date in the near future, and Commissioners
requested that they be given an updated Plan at least two weeks prior to the public hearing. The
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that something regarding well testing be included in the work
plan. Staff assured the Commission that it would be dealt with in the Plan, specifically in the
Rural Areas section.
John Achin
Request for modification of the provisions of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to
establish a Home Occupation Class A which utilizes more than 25% of the floor area of the
residence. The proposed occupation is building handmade furniture. Property is described as
61 36
Tax Map 132, Parcel 14A, and is located on the east side of Route 602, Howardsville Tpke.
Approximately 1000 feet west of its intersection with Route 617, Rockfish River Road in the
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, and told Commissioners that this is the first Class A
Occupation staff could identify to be brought before the Planning Commission. He said the
provisions of the Class A Occupation limit the area used for home occupation to 25% of the floor
area of the building, and the applicant is proposing to use about 64% of the floor area in the
home he is currently building. Mr. Fritz said that the applicant is handmaking furniture and
needs a significant amount of space to do so; no employees are proposed for the business, and no
special building layout is proposed.
Mr. Fritz said staff reviewed the request to determine whether it would set a precedent for either
Class A or Class B occupations in the future to receive a similar modification, and concluded
that it would not, as cited in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the modification
with one condition that "the area be devoted to the home occupation shall be in general accord
with the building plans attached to the staff report initialed WDF 10/13/98.
The applicant, John Achin, addressed the Commission. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's
question, Mr. Achin said that he has not heard any objections from neighbors about his proposed
business. Mr. Achin confirmed that there would not be heavy traffic in and out of his property,
due to the nature of his business.
Mr. Nitchmann said he has not any complaints from citizens in his district, and approves of the
modification as long as staff doesn't think it is setting a precedent. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Fritz if
it would be appropriate to impose a condition that there would be no employees to avoid setting
a precedent. Mr. Fritz responded that a condition is not necessary with a Class A Home
Occupation, and if the applicant wanted to apply for a Class B, he would need to come back to
the Commission and have the modification reapproved.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of the waiver request.
The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------------
Rosewood Village Site Plan
Planning Commission request to review site plan for Rosewood Village, an assisted living
community to be located at the corner of Greenbrier Drive and Westfield Drive.
Mr. Loewenstein reminded Commissioners had questions about this item when it was discussed
in late September. Mr. Rooker indicated that it was primarily Mr. Rieley who raised questions
about the site plan, and asked if the discussions should proceed in his absence. Mr. Wade said
the special use permit is going to the board October 21", and if there are any actions they could
use as conditions, "now would be the time for the Planning Commission to express that for the
board to consider...." In response to Mr. Rooker's question about having conditions at the site
plan review level, Mr. Wade responded that now would be the "best opportunity" to add those.
Mr. Loewenstein said that Mr. Rieley knew this was an agenda item tonight, and did not provide
any additional comments.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, reminded Commissioners that they approved a special use
permit for the facility in their September 22°d meeting, and emphasized that now is the time to
0 3q
express concerns about the site plan. He stated that no adjacent property owners have requested
that a public hearing be held or expressed any concerns to staff, at this point the applicant has
incorporated all development department comments and recommendations.
In response to Mr. Thomas' concerns about the drainage behind the facility, Mr. Wade said the
engineering department has reviewed the existing drainage and deemed it to be sufficient. In
response to Mr. Thomas' question about flattening the knoll on site, Mr. Wade said the facility
would be built "into the hill."
Representing the development, Mike Lavally of Architects Plus addressed the Commission, and
said the building would include a total of 60 units, and would also include some exterior space,
decks, and garden areas. He referenced the drainage pond, and said that it is at capacity. Mr.
Lavally said that Rosewood would not be discharging directly into that pond, but would have its
own vegetative cover and ponding that would "eventually lead to that with the stormwater
system." He further stated that all the paperwork and calculations have been done on the pond,
and are in accord with required engineering standards. Mr. Lavally said they have not received
any opposition from surrounding property owners or staff, and said all staff issues have been
addressed. "We have nothing that isn't meeting the qualifications that the staff has requested and
the rules and regulations call for."
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question regarding the percent of grade, Mr. Lavally said they
have not gone beyond a 4 to 1 slope. Mr. Lavally that the activity space will be on a level
terrain, and part of the critical slope will be removed to accommodate that space and the service
entry. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Lavally said that parts of the site that drain into
the previously mentioned pond would continue to do so, and new drainage created by the
driveway, the building, the sidewalk and other surfaces would be collected and taken to a
collection site.
Mr. Lavally mentioned that the concerns Mr. Rieley expressed in the September meeting
regarding the siting of the building were taken into account (specifically the topography and
critical slopes) in the site design so that the mass of the building sits well into the existing
topography. Mr. Rooker asked staff if the DISC Committee had any comments regarding the
plan, and Mr. Wade responded that the Committee is still finalizing their proposals.
Mr. Finley stated that county engineering will have to approve the drainage control plan in the
site development approval process. Thomas requested that staff and county engineering pay
special attention to stormwater detention issues on the property, and that Commissioners agreed
that staff needs to convey these concerns to the Board of Supervisors.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
ayne q'ilimberg,
CM