HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 08 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 8,1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 8,1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were:
Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; and
Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. David Benish,
Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice
Chairman, Mr. William Rieley.
The meeting convened at 6:05 p.m. A quorum was established with 5 members present.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the December 2nd Board of Supervisors Meeting. He said that the
Board held a work session and discussed funding the CIP, recognizing that the demands were greater
than the monies available. He reported that they the Board will be reviewing funding alternatives with
the County Executive in a follow-up work session in January, and will hold a public hearing closer to
their budget decision -making time. Mr. Cilimberg said he and Mr. Benish have discussed how to get the
Planning Commission involved earlier next year in the consideration of the CIP at the time other
agencies are presenting their project needs.
Work Session:
Comprehensive Plan — Natural Resources Section
Amendment to Chapter Two of Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, "Natural Resources and
Cultural Assets," as part of the state -mandated 5-year review, to revise the language of the chapter as it
currently exists in the 1989 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. Mary Joy Scala presented the staff
report, explaining that this review is for revisions of the Chapter as part of the 1989 Comp. Plan; the
Commission held a public hearing on the Chapter on October 200', and deferred action to allow staff to
incorporate comments made by the public if appropriate and include a new section on
Agricultural/Forestry Resources. She noted that all revisions made to the draft were left underlined.
Ms. Scala pointed out that the goals, objectives, strategies and standards were reviewed for consistency,
and in some cases she added goals, changed some objectives to goals and attempted to standardize these
throughout the document. She added that although the Agricultural/Forestry Resources section had been
added, the main discussion about agricultural and forestry will occur in Chapter Four, the Rural Areas
Chapter. She noted that the Biodiversity section had extensive revisions, due to suggestions from
Citizens for Albemarle and Jean Kolb. Ms. Scala emphasized that those changes were not substantive,
but were just reworded by someone very familiar with the concept of biodiversity. She said staff added
to the chapter the 15 sustainability accords developed by the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council,
which have not been addressed by the Board of Supervisors. At Mr. Rooker's suggestion, she agreed to
change the Strategy (Page 2) to "Review and support as appropriate the following Housing
Sustainability Council's Statements of Accord:"
Ms. Scala said staff added language to clarify (based on public comments) that this chapter applies to
both the rural areas and development areas because it's discussing natural resources and cultural assets
which are present in both areas; both areas are dependent upon these resources in the overall natural
environment. She added that she also clarified the four major open space systems do extend across the
rural area and development area boundary. Ms. Scala said that she had spoken with Water Resources
116
Manager David Hirschmann, who suggested deleting the strategy on page 36 regarding locating and
mapping public well and spring systems, because it duplicates the strategy on page 45. Mr. Rooker
suggested including a "glossary" to include terms such as goal, strategy, and objective. Ms. Scala said
staff recommends approval of the chapter.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Ms. Scala how the bulleted example on page 53 stating "seek to reduce habitat
fragmentation by maintaining large contiguous patches of woods, meadows, wetlands and streams"
would be accomplished since the land is privately owned. She responded that the Open Space Plan and
this chapter outline protection measures in general. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the bullets follow an
introduction that states the County could provide information explaining the importance of biodiversity
and informing how to protect biological resources on their land. Ms. Scala emphasized that these are
suggestions to landowners who are interested in protecting biodiversity, and pointed out that some
landowners choose to join ag/forestral districts or put their land in conservation easements. She added
that there are brochures pertinent to these topics produced in the Planning Department and made
available to the general public.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the biological inventory results would be used as a tool in the planning process
and brought before the Commission as a means of advising whether or not a development request is
granted. Ms. Scala replied that the staff currently has a lot of information that might be considered
"inventory" type information, such as the historic site survey, and the open space plan inventories — such
as critical slopes, mountains, stream valleys.
Ms. Scala said, "The way we treat significant resources now in the Open Space Plan — it actually
outlines implementation measures, and I suspect that this [biodiversity process] may be similar to the
process outlined now in the open space plan. What that says is if a project is by -right, the resources are
protected if we have existing regulations to protect them....if the project is by -right and we don't have a
regulation in effect then it's advisory, whether those resources are protected or not." She added, "If they
come in with a rezoning or a special use permit then we can use that information in a different way — we
might expect a proffer related to it or a condition of a special use permit."
Referencing pages 54 and 55, Mr. Nitchmann "took objection" to the change of the words "should" to
"will," and stated he wanted it changed back to should. Ms. Scala said that staff had made the change to
make the plan more definite and less ambiguous. "What the wills refer to are creating a biodiversity
committee and also creating an action plan."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "The decision of whether it should be `should' or `will' should be up to the Board
of Supervisors and not to the Planning Commission." He expressed concern about the potential cost of
the biodiversity process to the taxpayers.
Mr. Rooker said, "It's a strategy anyway. Nothing in here is mandatory. I don't see a whole lot of
difference between `should' and `will'. Before you move forward you're going to have to obtain
someone's approval to devote resources to it. As a strategy, if the word `should' is in there, it certainly
gives you the capacity to go before the appropriate parties and get those approvals." Mr. Rooker said if
the Commission were considering a rezoning on land containing an endangered species, he would
certainly want to know that the property contained an endangered species. "I view this as a very
valuable undertaking, and I don't think that having the information necessarily dictates the results. It
certainly is nice to have the information and use it as the basis for an intelligent decision. I
wholeheartedly support the undertakings contained in this chapter."
117
cm
Mr. Nitchmann asked if it was possible for biological inventory to be done on private property without
the landowner's approval. Staff replied that any program involving fieldwork, such as the gypsy moth
program, requires county personnel to ask permission first. Ms. Scala mentioned the Southwest
Mountain Historic District project, where personnel went door-to-door and asked permission to
photograph houses; if homeowners said no, they did not proceed.
Commissioners commended staff on an "excellent job" incorporating their last round of comments.
Mr. Finley recommended including better representation of farmers, foresters, etc, on the Water
Resources Committee (page 15). He said it was unclear on page 11 whether the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority ultimately makes decisions about water sources. Mr. Benish mentioned that there is an
explanation of the RWSA's role in the utilities section of the Land Use Plan, and suggested that that role
could be condensed and added to page 11 of this chapter. Commissioners agreed that this would be a
good idea.
Regarding land fragmentation, Mr. Finley mentioned that estate taxes have made it prohibitive to hold
large parcels together; Ms. Scala mentioned that there are currently tax benefits available for those who
put their property into conservation easements. Mr. Rooker said that the Piedmont Environmental
Council was instrumental in passing legislation that enables a person to obtain significant credits against
estate taxes by putting property into conservation easements, and has a brochure available to explain the
benefits. Commissioners discussed the status of PDR and TDR programs with staff, and Ms. Scala
indicated that a Board -appointed committee is currently developing the program for the county. The
Board has endorsed the idea, but the program is still being developed. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the
Commission may eventually be involved with the prioritization of criteria to establish what the hierarchy
of potential purchases would be. Ms. Scala referenced page 105 of the chapter, which includes a
strategy to pursue a Purchasable Development Rights program as recommended by the PDR committee.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of forwarding the Amendment to
Chapter Two of Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets," to
the Board of Supervisors with changes as follows: (page 2) Strategy: Review and support as
appropriate the Sustainability Council's Statements of Accord; (p. 35) delete Strategy regarding
locating public water sources, as it is duplicative of same strategy on page 45; (page 51) correct
typographical error "activities" in Habitat Fragmentation section; (page 54) change will back to should
in the Biodiversity Committee section; (page 11) clarify second bullet under RWSA section to explain
RWSA's role and reference appropriate section in land use plan to explain RWSA's role as authority in
making decisions about potable and waste water supplies/sources.
The motion passed unanimously.
The applicant for CPA 98-02 had not arrived at the meeting, and Mr. Loewenstein agreed to hear CPA
98-03 first.
Mr. Benish provided a brief overview of the CPA process. With public requests for amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, the County has two submittal dates per year for requests. The Commission first
decides whether to further study the amendment requests through a resolution of intent, but does not
actually make a decision about changing the Plan. If they agree to go forward with study, staff comes
back to the Commission through worksessions, and ultimately a public hearing with a recommendation.
CPA 98-03 Post Office Land Trust
11R
Request for a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the community of Hollymead.
The applicant's request is to change the recommended land use for land on the west side of Route 29
opposite North Forest Lakes from Industrial Service to Regional Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, and mentioned that the special use permit presented one week prior
for a limited service hotel is located on the front portion of this property; the applicant has a larger
development idea which includes land now designated as Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan.
Prior to rezoning, the Plan would have to reflect some commercial zoning and Regional Service would
be most appropriate based on what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Fritz said the area which the
applicant is recommending the CPA for is approximately 20 acres; staff is recommending the entire area
be reviewed, not just the 20 acre parcel.
He mentioned there is no proposed expansion in the development area, and staff presently has no
recommendations for the development area, but there are some things for transportation system on the
west side of the road, and Mr. Fritz said he would like to incorporate those into the Comprehensive Plan
and look at how they may affect the land use pattern in the entire Hollymead area.
Mr. Fritz explained that there is a proffer that exists on the property that has a road coming in to Route
29, then links back to Airport Road. There is also a proffer on the land to the south that limits access
points to three points on Route 29. Some type of parallel service road is also being considered for the
west side of Route 29. He mentioned proposed improvements to Airport Road and Route 606. Mr.
Rooker asked him to clarify the location of the proposed service road. Mr. Benish explained that the
parallel road would run from the 250 Bypass interchange to Airport Road. Mr. Cilimberg added, "This
is all wrapped up in the 29 North improvement review that VDOT is doing that they will be bringing to
the Board of Supervisors sometime early next year for them to see. What we have seen to this point
incorporates parallel roads both on the west side and east side of 29 to serve more local traffic needs."
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about sidewalks initially proposed for 29, Mr. Cilimberg said
sidewalks and bikeways would be located on the parallel roads. Mr. Cilimberg also told Commissioners
that VDOT has developed several schematic designs for the improvements, "not anything in cross-
section, but in terms of location of different potential roads."
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Fritz if it was necessary to get agreement from property owners within an area
proposed for changes. Mr. Fritz responded that because the Comprehensive Plan is a guiding principle
for the County and does not involve a land use change, there is not requirement that other owners
become involved, but added the County does notify them and work with them during any study
undertaken. Mr. Cilimberg said, "Any amendment area would be notified, and we would be talking
before anything ever would be finalized with those owners anyway."
Mr. Rooker asked what the size of the total area is being considered for review. Mr. Fritz indicated he
did not know the entire size. Mr. Cilimberg said that just the passage of a resolution of intent doesn't
necessarily precipitate any change on the 20 acres the applicant has brought forth or on the larger area
"in the spirit of comprehensive planning."
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about the history of the wording in his staff report regarding
discouragement of commercial development until 100 mobile home sites had been approved, Mr. Fritz
said that the area of the mobile home park was originally shown as industrial service in the
comprehensive plan; an applicant made application to change the Comp. Plan which resulted in some
area designation as residential , and some as commercial. He explained that as part of that, the language
included in his staff report was included in the Comprehensive Plan, and linked the development of the
119
area with the development of the mobile home park, stating that this shouldn't be developed
commercially until at least 100 units were in the mobile home park, and when it is developed, it will be
developed under a designated plan for development. Mr. Fritz said 100 sites have been approved, but
not yet developed. He confirmed that the 50-Acre Regional Service Area referenced is south of the
applicant's property and does not include his parcel.
Mr. Fritz said, "The way we're wording the resolution would allow us to incorporate that area originally
studied into any larger commercial area that might be done or smaller area — however it's done — this is a
way to look at, in a comprehensive way what impact one area may have another." He clarified that staff
has the resolution would just give staff the ability to further review the entire area, and they have no
recommended changes at this time. The only recommendation staff has is that if they review the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it be for the entire area.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if reviewing the total area would drag out the process. Mr. Fritz responded that he
and Mr. Benish have discussed this, and agreed that the things that they've cited as potential for
warranting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment such as the road network affect this area and many
others, and added that it would only increase the length of the process slightly. Mr. Benish added,
"There's fundamental issues whether we're looking at 30 acres or 230 acres that we're going to have to
resolve."
Mr. Rooker said, "It seems wise to me to look at the larger area when we're talking about a
Comprehensive Plan change. It doesn't make sense to me to look at spot changes when we're in the
middle of the kind of review we are now. I really support this approach. It certainly seems to me that
the character of that area has changed somewhat since the last Comprehensive Plan was passed."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I think if we had done a little bit more of this 20 years ago, we wouldn't have
ended up with the long 29 strip. The commercial areas would have been deeper, with service roads in
off of 29 one or two blocks with buildings there. The spread would not have not gone up as far 29... if
this can help alleviate some of that from happening in the future then that's what we need to do."
Mr. Loewenstein added, "I agree. I think this makes the Comprehensive Plan more comprehensive. I
mean we're talking about amending that plan, and I think this is a much better snapshot to have in order
to make decent planning decisions."
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of a resolution of intent to support CPA
98-03: To serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice the Planning
Commission adopts this Resolution of Intent to consider amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, Land
Use Plan as follows: to review all land use designations within the existing development area located
between Route 29 and Dickerson Road (Route 606) and south of Airport Road (Route 649).
The motion passed unanimously.
A brief recess was taken
CPA 98-02 Dunlora South
Request for a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for approximately 23 acres of land located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Rio
Road and Pen Park road, in Development Area Neighborhood 2. The request is to change the
recommended land use from Neighborhood Density Residential (3 to 6 dwellings/acre) to Urban Density
M
Residential (6.01 to 34 dwellings/acre), and to permit a mixed use development with limited non-
residential commercial/office type uses.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, and indicated that the applicant has not yet submitted a proposal,
but is planning a mixed use development which would likely be a high -density residential development
with some level of supporting commercial and office uses integrated into the development. He
summarized the site's distinctive topography, with buildable area near Rio Road with moderately steep
sloping land on the eastern edge of the site to a stream valley; the property is adjacent to the Dunlora and
River Run residential developments. He indicated that a good portion of the site was approved as a
phase of the Dunlora development, but because of the character of the property and its relative inability
to be connected to Dunlora, it was not developed within the concept of the Dunlora residential
subdivision.
Mr. Benish said during the staff s analysis of the Land Use Plan, when reviewing Neighborhood 2, they
determined it to be a good area to hold additional residential capacity due to its proximity to downtown
and the development of the Meadowcreek Parkway. He said they considered several undeveloped along
the Rio Road corridor, and looked to increase the residential density along those areas. Staff evaluated
additional commercial area during that time, but chose not to add any commercial designations because
they wanted a more definitive idea of the Meadowcreek Parkway's impact, and wanted to allow
development to occur in Neighborhood 2 and address the need for commercial at a later date.
Mr. Benish explained that the Comprehensive Plan establishes some land use development guidelines
that place specific emphasis on walkable neighborhoods and on traffic reduction efforts, which a mixed -
use development is generally supportive of. There are also some general standards in the land use plan
that are supportive of the concept of a mixed use, mixed residential/commercial concept for
development; however, the current guidelines and standards are less definitive as to the particular
expectations are for that mixed -use development, especially in residential areas. Staff has also noted
that in terms of implementation of infill development recommendations of the comprehensive plan that
on smaller tracts such as this, evaluating development proposals are difficult to implement undeK current
zoning regulations. The most available zoning districts to consider and review mixed -use developments
are planned districts, but there are some impediments to the way those are structured that make it more
complicated to review them.
Mr. Benish concluded that staff feels there is merit in evaluating the amendment request because the
higher density and mixed use concept are generally consistent with the themes staff is to encourage in
the Comprehensive Plan now. However, he added, there would be a need to review those standards and
guidelines to allow staff to better evaluate how mixed use development could be incorporated into
commercial areas. Staff has recommended that this Comprehensive Plan amendment focus more on the
general standards that could be applied to a specific rezoning request rather than to focus on specific
amendments to land use designations.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Benish to clarify staff s recommendations. Mr. Benish replied that the
resolution of intent would be to consider looking at the standards for mixed use development in the
Comprehensive Plan as a way to address this request; the other recommendation would be that the Board
of Supervisors consider a resolution of intent to amend the zoning text for planned development. Mr.
Loewenstein said they might have to rephrase the language slightly to make those connections clearer.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if any other large pieces of land would possibly come into play for development in
the near future. Mr. Benish pointed out vacant properties that are subject to potential development in the
area: properties that are just south of the K-Tech school, and the "Wetzel Tract," noting that the
alignment of the Meadowcreek Parkway would cut through that tract. North of Rio Road, he said the
"Belvedere Tract," several hundred acres, is already zoned R-4 for Neighborhood Density Residential in
the Comprehensive Plan. He added that with the new private school planned for the remaining large
tract south of the site, remaining sites are fairly isolated smaller parcels of land.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any plan to widen Rio Road beyond the entrance to the Meadowcreek
Parkway. Mr. Benish responded that the only widening that would occur would be for the reconfigured
intersection and some road adjustment for the guard rail section. Mr. Thomas asked about a tract of land
between the guard rail section and Pen Park Road, and Mr. Benish said that is where the Catholic School
will be going.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what the benefits are in broadening the CPA consideration for these other pieces.
Mr. Benish replied that by broadening the scope of the CPA, they could examine the general standards
that allow people to make application for the use of that area. "We're kind of de-emphasizing looking at
changes in land use on the map as much as the guidelines for what we would expect a development to
look like." Mr. Cilimberg said, "What we're recommending is more in the area of text amendment than
it is map amendment. Mr. Rooker asked how the text amendment would ultimately affect this property.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would depend on how it was written, but "conceivably, the language
regarding residential areas would cover how you incorporate mixed uses within those areas, giving some
kind of guideline as to how that should happen, and then in turn setting up a basis for evaluation of
specific rezoning requests."
In response to Mr. Kamptner's question, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the county is looking at
redefining both "Neighborhood Density Residential" and "Urban Density Residential." Mr. Benish
added that the current descriptions do not specifically address mixed use development. Mr. Cilimberg
said the Planned Development, particularly the PUD section, has served as the mechanism to
accommodate mixed use that is primarily residential; however, the PUD section only applies to parcels
of 100 acres or greater.
Mr. Cilimberg added, "It still becomes site specific case as a rezoning and .... there may need to be some
adjustment in land use designation for this particular area even with the overall changes that occur in the
text, but that's something we really need to evaluate based on whether or not it meets the needs of the
applicant, the needs of the area as well as impacts on the area."
Mr. Benish said, "We're not necessarily saying that mixed use is appropriate in this location, but we
don't really feel that comfortable with the tools we have to establish what we would consider to be
appropriate, and that's what we want to focus in on and then allow that particular request to move
forward at a rezoning level where there required to provide specific information for a development
proposal where then you can look at the merits of whether it fits on this site or not."
Mr. Rooker asked, "How does that fit with the change from Neighborhood Density to Urban Density
and the potential for substantially increased residential density on this property?" He expressed serious
reservations about entertaining something that would increase the density so dramatically on this
property, stating that until the Meadowcreek Parkway is underway, he wouldn't feel comfortable
approving a large number of additional units on Rio Road as it stands today, describing it as "terrible
planning." Mr. Rooker said he is comfortable with change to the Comprehensive Plan text to deal with
the potential incorporation of commercial, but stated he would not vote favorably on an action that says
,. the Commission is supporting a study of the increased density on this particular property at this time.
I T�
Mr. Benish commented, "What we have said in our recommendation is we want to focus that evaluation
of standards."
`'4-~` Mr. Rooker said, "Your proposed resolution of intent doesn't really mention this application, nor does it
mention the request he's made for the change from Neighborhood Density to Urban Density. Today,
I'm not comfortable supporting even the study of that proposed change. I am comfortable studying what
you have down here as your recommended resolution, which does not deal with his request. It deals
with kind of a broader issue of mixed commercial and residential development."
Mr. Loewenstein referenced his earlier question regarding how to connect the approval of CPA 98-02
with that language as proposed.
Mr. Benish said the intent was to evaluate the applicant's request, but the staff approach was less on the
merits of a land use change, and more on the standards that would allow them to evaluate that type of a
change during rezoning requests.
Mr. Loewenstein said in order to address the CPA, there needs to be a resolution that specifically cites it,
which the resolution language in the staff report doesn't do. "What we need to do is figure out whether
we're going to consider two resolutions here... if we're going to consider a single resolution, we still
have to decide how and if we want to factor CPA 98-02 into it. I don't know that passing this resolution
of intent with this proposed language and nothing else really gives us the ability to say that that includes
consideration of this particular CPA. I don't think it does... "
Mr. Benish responded, "I think it does in terms of their Neighborhood Service designation. That is part
of their application as well, and that is the mixed -use aspect that we're evaluating. I think the question
here is the increased residential density issue."
Mr. Rooker commented, "It may be that we're going to be making changes to the planned development
sections of the ordinance that ultimately will allow smaller tracts to be considered for planned
development, in which case issues of density and commercial use and the commercial density as well as
the residential can all be evaluated at one time..."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I kind of viewed this as the vehicle to get us to answer the exact questions that
you're concerned about... this is the vehicle that brought it [the mixed use issue] forward... this happens
to be the particular parcel and where it's located, and you've expanded it such that it would look at other
candidates in order to... give us more parameters to guide us in the future."
In responded Mr. Nichimen's question, staff confirmed that there have been CPA reviews in the past
where nothing has been changed, including UREF and 3 or 4 other requests in the Hollymead area that
were deemed premature.
Mr. Rooker said that the Commission had looked into Planned Development designation several months
ago to see if it could be amended to be more flexible, and said he did not necessarily view that as tied to
this application. "We're talking about a zoning text amendment that would be of general
applicability... this property might ultimately be appropriate for that kind of development. I don't think
we need to tie our general desires yet to this specific piece of property."
Mr. Benish said, "It is difficult at a Comprehensive Plan Amendment level to evaluate whether you do
this type of development and expect the level of detail you want to evaluate that proposal in terms of
traffic studies, design plans.., particularly on smaller tracts of land, that becomes very unwieldy to
do .... If there's a general expectation of what we want to see in mixed use development then we can
move forward in a rezoning process and compare that proposal to those standards and guidelines in the
plan." He expressed concern that the newer types of mixed use developments typically are associated
with apartment -type development, and those would require more of an urban density designation.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see the Planned Development section of the zoning ordinance
amended to be more flexible in its applicability but didn't know if the Commission needed to deal with a
specific piece of property at this time in order to accomplish that.
Mr. Kamptner said it there are two different resolutions to be considered: a textual study to look at
mixed commercial uses which may lead to a change in the text of the Comprehensive Plan, and may in
turn be implemented through change to the Planned Development zoning regulations; and a change in
the designation of the 23-acre tract from Neighborhood to Urban. He said that change of designation
would most likely be made after the first study is completed, but it is possible that the change may not
be necessary as a result of changes to the text.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the applicant's concept was to incorporate some non-residential service -
level commercial use within the context of a higher -density residential development. The first approach
considered to address that was to change the density designation and then add a little commercial; staff
felt that did not make a lot of sense. As staff realized the increase of this type of application —
residential development with some supporting use — they felt the first place to address the mixed use
concept was within the whole structure of the language defining Urban and Neighborhood Density
Residential Areas. He said staff normally looks at density on a gross, rather than net, level.
Mr. Benish said that he estimates the first work session on the CPA would occur in February or March.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if they would have enough information from the DISC Committee by that point.
He said that developers see a trend of light commercial within residential. "My own preference with this
site is that if it's developed if all the residential is in back and all we have across the front is a strip of
parking lots with buildings behind it for offices, that I'm really not too much in favor of it, because right
now it's a nice residential setting all the way up that road...."
Mr. Benish said that the DISC Committee work is expected to be completed by May, with drafts
completed internally by March. He reported that he ran this proposal by DISC because it does propose
some changes to the Comp. Plan and the zoning ordinance, and said they are supportive of the changes
to Planned Development text because it's fundamental in giving the development community to do some
of the design concepts they're recommending.
Mr. Nitchmann raised the issue of the 25% critical slope guideline, and asked what the DISC Committee
was considering in regard to the slope requirement. Mr. Benish said they hadn't looked at whether the
critical slopes on this particular site are greater than 25%, but it's not indicated to be a significant
portion of an open space, stream valley or critical area. He pointed out a rough access road on the site,
which was scrapped as a second Dunlora entrance for feasibility issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is some physical constraint to how this area under consideration would develop
as it relates to the rest of the Dunlora property. He said the applicant is looking at this more as a
separate area, and said a lot of land would need to be disturbed to create a second access.
Mr. Benish said there are two different tracts of land involved, one of which is much more developable,
the other would require significant grading. Mr. Cilimberg said that when this is brought back to the
114
Commission, the applicant will probably want to show a conceptual plan of their approach for the mixed
uses. "It's premature right now to be able to answer all of those physical land development questions,
but you might get a better idea not only of how you set up a mixed use concept, but also what it might
look like."
Staff clarified that adopting this resolution would provide standards in the Comprehensive Plan that
would allow mixed use developments to be considered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of a resolution of intent to support
CPA 98-02: To serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice the
Planning Commission adopts this Resolution of Intent to consider amendment of the Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Plan as follows: to review all Land Use Plan objectives, guidelines, standards and other
recommendations as they relate to the provision of mixed use (mix of commercial/office and residential)
developments. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of a Resolution of Intent: To serve
the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice the Planning Commission
adopts this Resolution of Intent to consider a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the Planned
Development provisions, particularly the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions, to allow for
easier applicability to smaller sites. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that there will be ample opportunity to provide input during the normal public
process when a specific application is brought forward.
Old Business
At Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Cilimberg graciously agreed to speak with Roxanne White about a
year -old request for new chairs in the Commission's meeting chambers.
New Business
Mr. Loewenstein led fellow Commissioners in a discussion of their meeting procedures, explaining that
comments had been received from past and present Commissioners and the general public about rules
and procedures; the current rules are 14 years old. He referenced materials from Mr. Bob Watson of
CALAC, and the copy of the current Board of Supervisors meeting guidelines and recent amendment
regarding applicant presentation length.
1. Unscheduled Items
Mr. Nitchmann asked if, at the Board of Supervisors' meeting during the unscheduled items
presentations, someone raises an issue that is on the agenda they are allowed to continue speaking. Mr.
Cilimberg said that if is an item to be discussed that evening or one that have not yet received for a
public hearing discussion, the Board does not allow the speaker to continue.
Mr. Loewenstein raised the question of whether or not the Commission fulfills the same sort of public
role that the Board does, and to what degree that affects whether or not they want to include this
particular item on the agendas each week. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Commission is not a body like
the Board entertaining all items of county business, and said there is concern that an item might be
brought to the Commission that they might hear in a public hearing, or items that have already gone
through the Commission to the Board before the Board meets on them.
He pointed out that everything the Commission does revolves around a ministerial decision or public
hearing, so it's not as clear what the bounds are for the Commission versus the Board. Mr. Cilimberg
1T5
said it's at the discretion of the chairman to have anyone from the public bring an item to the
Commission's attention at any meeting. Mr. Loewenstein indicated that he and other chairs have done
that, and allowing unscheduled items would formalize that opportunity. He said it might need to be
emphasized to the public that there is a space in old or new business for items that are not on the official
agenda.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board does allow a maximum of three unscheduled speakers with a 5-
minute time limit on each. The Board tries to find out ahead of time who will speak, and does not
engage in any discussion about the items presented. Mr. Loewenstein said that this would only add 15
minutes to their entire meeting time.
Mr. Nitchmann said he has no objection to trying this on a trial basis, but his major concern is that
people are going to bring up their own agendas, and wants to make sure that Commissioners do not
engage in lengthy questions and conversations.
Mr. Rooker said, "If we're going to do it, I think we should limit it to three minutes. I don't know why
somebody speaking on a general issue would have more time than somebody speaking on a particular
issue that's before us."
Mr. Finley agreed that three people at three minutes each could be allowed to speak, with no discussion
among Commissioners.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the agenda for their meetings include some basic rules so that attendees
can see exactly how the Commission operates.
Commissioners agreed that questions could be directed to the speaker solely for clarification.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that it's possible that a brand new study request could be brought before the
Commission, and said that there is already an "absolutely full and overflowing plate of things" right
now, and emphasized that new topics will have to be discussed with staff and Commissioners and even
the Board to determined what items precipitate further review.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "If we set people up with a set of expectations then we're going to be dooming a
lot of people to disappointment, and I don't want that to happen. I think that... if there's a way to
articulate these so that what we're going to do and the kind of consideration we're going to give it —
which will be basically accepting the information — if that can be made clear as part of the rules or in a
related document, that should be O.K. But I don't want to get in a situation of having [people] come in
here going away really frustrated that nothing happened, because essentially that's going to be the case.
Nothing is going to happen on most topics, unless we move it to a new business item."
Mr. Rooker suggested that the rules state the Commission will not ask questions or take any action on
these matters at the time they are brought up.
2 Speaker Time Limits at Public Hearings
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I personally believe that we should be consistent with what the board's doing,
partly because some... members of the public are going to end up preparing two separate presentations
for us... I think that's confusing, and not necessarily going to make things significantly better in any
way. The Board has the final decision on this. It seems to me if anybody wanted to extend the time
limit, it might be the Board rather than the Commission....I don't think we're ever going to achieve a
116
perfect solution." He mentioned that he has received comments that speaking times are too short, and
comments that speaking times are too long.
Mr. Nitchmann recalled some meetings that ran very late, especially when there are several items on the
agenda and multiple speakers on each topic.
Mr. Rooker agreed, and said that three minutes is enough time for a speaker to convey their opinion and
provide any new information. He added that changing the speaking time limit from meeting to meeting
based on the number of speakers in line would be confusing to the public.
Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to be able to ask a question of the speaker for clarification. Mr.
Loewenstein said making the three -minute rule a general one is necessary to satisfy the doctrine of
fairness. Mr. Cilimberg suggested holding questions for the speaker until the end of their speech. Mr.
Kamptner said public comment would continue to be allowed on ministerial actions, and the rules would
apply to those matters also. I
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think we've covered that L that really isn't part of our rules and procedures
anyway; it has to do with the Board. I think that's been fairly thoroughly addressed in the last couple of
weeks, and the County Attorney has made statements that cud in the record... "
are,
Mr. Cilimberg said the County Executive staff is working on rules and procedures for committee
formation that the Board would adopt so they have more consistency in how they create a committee,
charge the committee, etc.
Mr. Nitchmann said that the committees need to be given a date when the first rough draft of their work
is due to the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein said the committee processes are being addressed and are "outside of the purview of
our consideration for our rules of procedure," and previous Commission comments and letters from Mr.
Watson dealing with matters related to the committee process are a part of the record.
4 Applicant SpeakingTimes
Mr. Loewenstein reported that the Board of Supervisors will be implementing a new policy of applicants
limited to a 10-minute presentation and 5 minute rebuttal, and endorsed the idea for the Commission
also. He commented that in the last six months, there has been improvement in the area of applicant
presentation.
Mr. Nitchmann said that in presentations regarding large proposals if applicants ask for more time and
the Commission knows there is a big issue they can grant the additional time.
Mr. Finley and Mr. Rooker agreed that 10 minutes in most cases is adequate. Mr. Rooker said, "You're
getting a staff report, we've had the information in writing before the meeting, and the staff gives a
thorough report of the facts. It think it's been a rare case when we've had an applicant we really needed
to speak more than 15 minutes total on an issue, and most of them don't." He agreed that there will be a
few issue$er year that warrant additional time, and the language in the Board procedures that the
Commission will parallel addresses that.
Mr. Nitchmann asked when the applicant would give his rebuttal, especially in light of issues that the
public might raise during the public hearing. Commissioners agreed that the applicant should be able to
197
provide "concluding remarks" after the hearing to touch on any points not raised in his/her initial
presentation.
Mr. Loewenstein mentioned that "calling a question" is permissible, but said remarks by Commissioners
should be allowed to be made for the record. From conversations with the County Attorney and others
regarding "Robert's Rules of Order," Mr. Loewenstein said that technically there needs to be a motion to
call the question, and that motion must be seconded and a 2/3 majority vote taken for the call to stand.
Mr. Kamptner said the issue is not addressed in the Commissioner handbook, but is addressed in the
current procedures.
The Commission agreed to use the "Robert's Rules of Order" to address the calling of question.
Mr. Nitchmann said staff reports can be too long, and other Commissioners pointed out that the staff
reports are helpful to the general public, and more descriptive regarding maps and locations.
a
The Commission agreed in general consensus to hefollowing: (1) the Commission will entertain
unscheduled speakers prior to their regular - , limited to three speakers, who will each have three
minutes to speak — no Commission discussion will ensue, but questions may be asked for clarification at
the conclusion of each speech; (2) speakers during the regular public hearings will still be limited to
three minutes; (3) applicants will be allowed ten minutes to explain their application, plus five minutes
for "concluding remarks."
Mr. Kamptner said that their comments and changes will be updated in the revised rules and procedures
for the Commission. Staff will revise the Commission's existing notes and procedures to incorporate the
above and update to reflect current procedures and provide this for the Commission's January 5u'
meeting.
Commissioners agreed that the 6:00 p.m. meeting time should stand.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
IIR