Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 07 1997 PC MinutesER 10-7-97 OCTOBER 7, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioners Dotson and Nitchmann. A quorum was established and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the September 16th meeting were approved (4:0:1) as amended. Ms. Huckle abstained from the vote because she was not present at the September 16th meeting. Mr. Keeler summarized actions taken at the October 1st Board of Supervisors meeting. WORK SESSION - Water Resources Ordinance - Final Commission review. Mr. Hirschman led the discussion. He and Mr. Kamptner explained briefly changes made in the proposed ordinance since the last work session, with the most significant change being in the organization of the document, i.e. lengthy sections were broken apart to create "stand alone sections that deal with specific issues germane to a more relevant issue." It is hoped this reorganization will make the document easier to use by both staff and the public. Two issues which are still outstanding are (1) Fees; and (2) the Mountain Overlay Ordinance. (The Ordinance proposes that land disturbing activity in a Mountain Overlay District, which disturbs less than 10,000 square feet, can be accomplished with an Erosion Control Agreement with appropriate documentation attached. Activity greater than 10,000 square feet will require a full Erosion Control Plan. This topic was discussed at length later in the meeting.) Questions raised by the Commission were as follows- --Page 20, Sec. 19.3-20 (b) - Ms. Huckle asked if staff envisions more personnel in order to be able to perform periodic inspections as described. ANSWER: The language is taken directly from the Code of Virginia. The present County staff could not possibly comply with the language. The Board recently asked that any amendments dealing with development issues address three issues, (1) the implications for staffing in the implementation of the ordinance; (2) the implications for ,,z. 10-7-97 2 review time; and (3) the implications as related to housing affordability. Those three items will be addressed in the report which goes to the Board. --Mr. Finley asked how the 45 day time frame for Erosion Plan approval differs from the present practice. ANSWER: The present time is 30 days and it is the intention of staff to continue to follow that 30-day turnaround time. However, the State Code is explicit on a 45 day review period and it is included in this ordinance to be consistent with the State Code. --Mr. Finley asked about the definition of agricultural road. If the road leading to a residence is more than 10,000 square feet, is it exempt from the requirement?" ANSWER: The State Attorney General's office has issued a ruling that agricultural roads are exempt from erosion control. The intent here is to try to prevent the possibility of someone having an approved plat who may start their road construction without an erosion control permit under the auspices of it being an agricultural or forestal road. It is uncertain, at this point, whether this approach is legal. Staff is awaiting a copy of the Attorney General's "letter opinion" on this issue and will review it prior to the final draft of this Ordinance. If it is determined the definition of agricultural road, as proposed here, must be changed, then "agricultural road, as defined by State Code, is exempt from erosion" regulations. Even if the road is also the access for a residence, if it's primary use is for agriculture, it would still be exempt. Mr. Tice pointed out the Ordinance says an agricultural road is exempt except where certain portions of the road cross section exceeds certain dimensions, (i.e. the entire disturbed area cross section for the road exceeds 50 feet, or vertical height of the fill is higher than 10 feet). --Mr. Finley asked about the statement cutting of forests is not exempt unless artificially or naturally reforested." ANSWER: Mr. Tice said this is to make a distinction between lands that are retained in forest use vs. lands which are converted to another land use after the timber is harvested (which would require an Erosion Plan). Mr. Hirschman added: "This is a way to say if the land use changes, it is subject to erosion control." --Page 8 - Mr. Finley asked for clarification of the exemption for farm structures. ANSWER: This language is taken directly from the Code of Virginia. Presently farm structures must get a building permit. An agreement, similar to that used for residential development, is used to address land disturbance activity less than 10,000 square feet. A building permit is required for all farm structures, but the structures are exempt from the Building Code. The permit is for zoning review of setbacks, etc. In this Ordinance, if the structure disturbs more than 10,000 square feet, an erosion control permit will be required. --Mr. Tice asked if this Ordinance implements all the authority granted to localities in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, or have things been "left out or modified?" He asked specifically about the 10,000 square feet limit, which the CBPA allows to be 2,500 square feet. ANSWER: Mr. Kamptner: The E&S enabling legislation allows us to impose more stringent substantive requirements. We are limited in what we can do procedurally.... With the CBPA, the County has identified Resource Protection Areas, but it has not taken the step to establish Resource a2� M M om 10-7-97 Management Areas." Mr. Hirschman talked about the Stormwater Management Act. He said this Ordinance addresses the issue of stormwater management in Resource Protection Areas. There are other things which localities are authorized to do in the Act which the County does not do, e.g. mandatory pumping of septic tanks every five years, and the requirement for site plans for disturbance less than 2,500 square feet. Those items were not addressed in this Ordinance because the mandate from the Board was "to consolidate and update what we already had, with the exception of doing more on water quality." Mr. Kamptner added that an Ordinance which would implement all the authority granted ender the CBPA would be beyond the scope of this project. Mr. Tice said he hopes, "if there is good reason to consider reducing the square footage from 10,000 to 2,500 and doing some of the other things," it won't be another 15-20 years before those things can be considered. Mr. Kamptner said there is a process which must be followed in the designation of Resource Management Areas. However, changing the 10,000 to 2,500 could possibly be done through the enabling authority of the E & S Act and the Stormwater Management Law. Mr. Finley said there should be a lot of community involvement before such a change is considered, Mr. Tice said "the majority of the State's population now works, very effectively, under an Ordinance with that level of limitation." He said making that change might eliminate a "dual" approach through the Mountain Overlay District, i.e. going to 2,500 square feet (for erosion control), county -wide, might eliminate the need for a second level for the Mountain Overlay District. He said he is concerned about the cumulative impact of the development activity that currently is exempt from the Ordinance because of the 10,000 square foot limit. Ms. Huckle said she is concerned, even with the way the Ordinance is proposed here, that there will be insufficient staff to ensure that the Ordinance is followed, Mr. Loewenstein wondered how long it would take to receive public input and also how long before there could be "realistic input" about the personnel situation. Mr. Tice said he does not want to hold up the progression of this Ordinance, but he feels such a change deserves consideration. Mr. Finley pointed out that such a change will mean more staff, more fees, and more taxes, and those #hints mus# also be considered. Mr. Kelsey said a 2,500 square foot limit could triple the staff load. Staff agreed to contact other counties to see how the 2,500 square feet is working. Such a change could be handled with an amendment later. --Mr. Tice asked if this Ordinance in any way effects the Scenic River Designation for the Mormon's River. ANSWER: No, because it will stay in the Zoning Ordinance as an overlay. --Mr. Tice pointed out that the current Ordinance requires a Water Quality Impact Assessment, but this one does not. What replaces that requirement? ANSWER: An assessment is still required, but this Ordinance changes the name to a Mitigation Plan. =.Mr. Tice asked if isolated wetlands are given any protection in this proposed Ordinance. ANSWER: Not beyond federal standards --just wetlands that are associated with stream buffers. 2a6 10-7-97 4 --Mr. Tice asked if the "requirement that post -development phosphorous loads not exceed pre -development" applies in all four areas. ANSWER: It does, although the calculation method uses different values, depending on the area. --Mr. Tice noted that the CBPA requires a 100 foot stream buffer on agricultural lands, which can be reduced to 25 feet if the farm has a Conservation Plan. This Ordinance allows a 25 feet stream buffer for all agricultural lands, but requires that all farms must have a Conservation Plan. He asked if his understanding was correct. ANSWER: Mr. Hirschman confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Tice's understanding of the proposed language. Mr. Hirschman added that the Soil & Water Conservation District has completed Conservation Plans for all tracts of cropland adjacent to perennial streams. --Mr. Tice asked if the County Code addresses "illicit discharges and illegal disposal." ANSWER: Mr. Kamptner did not know the answer to the question. He said this Ordinance does not address those issues. Mr. Keeler said there are prohibitions of the storage of certain types of materials within the floodplain and there are provisions in the Site Plan Ordinance for the minimization of downstream pollution, which speaks directly to poisons, etc. He said he does not think the County Code has any provisions, and even if it did, he questioned who would enforce such provisions. The County Code does deal with landfills. Mr. Kelsey added that a Certified Engineer's Report for industrial properties covers the storage of hazardous materials. --Page 6 - Mr. Tice asked about the definition of contiguous non -tidal wetlands and the definition of natural stream. He asked: "Do we want to exclude non -tidal wetlands that lie within or adjacent to an altered stream channel?" ANSWER: Natural stream does not have any bearing on the requirement for a stream buffer. Mr. Hirschman suggested that the definition could be amended to say "stream channel" rather than "natural stream channel." He pointed out that the definition of stream is a natural stream or human -made waterway." --Page 10 - Mr. Tice asked about the definition of runoff. He pointed out that runoff can include things other than just "precipitation," such as water from car washing and lawn irrigation. Ms. Huckle suggested the word "water" be substituted for "precipitation." ANSWER: Staff noted that a detention basin would not be sized based on water runoff from car washing activity. Staff said they would look at this definition further. --Page 24 - Mr. Tice asked about the definition of development areas and areas of infill and redevelopment. He asked if the definition of development areas is clear in the Land Use Section of the Comp Plan, as referred to here, and whether there is a map which shows infill and redevelopment areas. ANSWER: Development areas boundaries are described in the Comp Plan. There is presently no map, but "this is holding a place if such a thing ever happens." Mr. Tice said the proposed wording here seems to imply that this condition has to be met in order for the definition to apply. Mr. Kamptner explained: "Until those areas are designated, then it would be subject to the development areas." --Page 31, Sec. 19.3-36 (c) and (d) - Mr. Tice asked: "How much does that take into account upstream contributing uses?" ANSWER: It will take into �a� 10-7-97 5 consideration the drainage area. When it refers to the ultimate land development, it is the project. Both Mr. Hirschman and Mr. Kelsey agreed that this language needs to be reviewed and clarified so as to take into account plans that have already been approved, but not built. --Mr. Finley asked if any consideration is given to situations where the runoff from a development may be very small, but a VDOT drainage easement across the property, which drains a large upstream area, may be quite significant. ANSWER: Mr. Kelsey said all drainage is considered which is coming through a property. (Note: Because he did not come to the microphone, most of his response was inaudible.) --Page 33, paragraph (f), dealing with Peak Rate and Velocity of Runoff - Mr. Tice asked why (5) and (6) are exempt. ANSWER: Mr. Hirschman said : "It can be discretionary. If runoff from a development is small compared with what is coming down the channel, in either a 2-year or a 10-year storm, detention could possibly have a negative impact of timing the release from a detention facility to coincide with the peak running down. That is not to say that water quality is exempt." (5) and (6) would not be exempt from BMP's. --Page 28 (c) - Ms. Huckle asked how performance bonds are handled, particularly, is there a renewal provision with adjustments made for inflation. ANSWER: The bond will be required at the time the construction begins and once the facility is completed the bond is released. On -going maintenance would be dealt with through a maintenance agreement. Mr. Kelsey said inspections are made at the time the bonds are renewed (usually every 6 months or 12 months) to see if the bond will still cover the work and adjustments can be made to the bond at that time. The Ordinance allows for inflation to be factored in with the bond price. Staff continues to work on improvements to the bonding process. --Page 10 - Mr. Tice asked about the definition of water dependent facilities. He questioned the part of the definition related to "water oriented recreation areas." He wanted to be sure there isn't a loophole which would allow someone to eliminate or reduce a stream buffer, regardless of the type of project, just by stating that they are creating a "water oriented recreation area." ANSWER: Staff agreed this definition needs to be clarified and a connection needs to be made between the first and second sentence. --Page 35, Sec. 19.3.41(b) - Mr. Finley said it is unclear whether intermittent streams in Water Supply Protection Areas are, or are not, considered streams. He also asked what "other rural land" in the phrase "if the land development is located in other rural land," means. ANSWER: The Ordinance puts land in three categories, a development area, a water supply protection area, or other rural land. Mr. Finley asked if a buffer would be required on a stream, in a water supply protection area, which flows only a month or month and a half a year. ANSWER: The current Runoff Control Ordinance has a building and septic setback on all tributary streams in the reservoir watershed. Tributary means intermittent or perennial. A field visit is performed to determine whether a stream is intermittent or perennial. A characteristic looked for is whether it has a defined stream channel with defined banks. ,�1,2 7 0 10-7-97 6 --Related to Mr. Finley's question about stream buffers, Mr. Tice pointed out there is a provision in the proposed Ordinance (page 40) which allows a waiver if the program authority determines that the stream buffer would preclude reasonable access or prohibit the practical construction and installation of septic systems, etc. Mr. Tice asked if there is language in this Ordinance, or the Zoning Ordinance, which would prohibit or minimize the creation of lots that would necessitate encroachment?" ANSWER: (Paragraph c, page 40) For the development of septic systems, the lot must have been recorded prior to the date of adoption of this chapter. Mr. Tice asked about encroachment for other reasons, such as access. ANSWER: Mr. Hirschman said the access issue is addressed through the definition of "necessary infrastructure", which does not include a driveway or a road. "You can only encroach on a buffer for stormwater conveyance channels and other necessary infrastructure, and 'necessary infrastructure' is defined." Ms. Huckle asked how if it is possible for a lot to be created which would not meet the requirements. ANSWER: Mr. Kelsey said: " I don't see how that is possible because at the preliminary plat stage we field identify intermittent streams and where the buffers will be." Ms. Huckle said it seems that (B)(2), page 40, says if "a lot isn't legal to start with, you can make some adjustments and build on it." ANSWER: Mr. Kamptner explained: "What (B)(2) does is allow an applicant to get a modification of the 50 foot buffer if the lot is created after the date of this Ordinance, only for stormwater conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure. That is the only type of development for which a modification can be granted." Mr. Hirschman added: "There may be an instance where a main subdivision road would have to cross an intermittent stream. That might be considered reasonable access, but the individual lots and the driveways and their improvements couldn't be laid out in such a way that would cause an encroachment." Public comment was invited. Mr. Don Franco addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: --The Blue Ridge Homebuilders would support an assessment covering review time, staffing, and affordable housing. --Changing the limit to 2,500 square feet would triple the number of Erosion Control Plans which would need review. 2,500 square feet is "nothing," so almost all building permits would trigger that requirement. Before making that change, careful consideration must be given to how it would be enacted and staffed. --Consideration should be given to changing the bonding process, possibly tieing them to a five-year plan. --Overall, this proposed Ordinance is a step forward and helps close the gap between development in the rural areas and development in the growth areas. Commissioners commended staff for their work on this ordinance. Mr. Tice said he feels this will be a much more effective document than the three or four it replaces, and it is easier to understand and to use. Other Commissioners agreed. �a7� 10-7-97 N%WW It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to forward the Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Formal action was required at this time. 0 WORK SESSION - Sign Ordinance Amendments Ms. McCulley presented the staff report. She explained these amendments are to refine those sections of the Ordinance which have not been working well, and thus reduce the number of recurring variances and confusion over interpretation. She said the most significant changes, which address the most variances, are those related to (1) the height of wall signs in commercial districts; and (2) the size of wall signs in planned unit developments. These amendments would increase the size of wall signs in planned unit developments for commercial areas from 32 sq. ft. to 1 sq. ft. per 1 linear foot of building frontage, up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. (equivalent to what is allowed in commercial office or commercial retail). Another change is related to political signs and is based on the determination that the current regulation "is not treating that form of political expression in the same way we treat other forms of expression." (Example: Real estate and general business signs can be 32 square feet.) Changes are proposed to electric message signs which would disallow them in residential or rural zoned property. Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the changes which would allow a political sign to be 32 square feet and also removes the restrictions related to how far in advance of an election the signs can be erected. Ms. McCulley said this regulation has been almost totally ignored, but staff can continue to try to work with the 30 day limit if that is determined to be legal. She said she needs to discuss further with the County Attorney's office the question of freedom of political expression and whether or not the number of signs, size of signs and day limitations are legal. It was noted that many political signs are most often placed in the VDOT right-of-way, and the County has no control over those signs, unless they obstruct an intersection or sight distance. Mr. Grady, Assistant Zoning Administrator, described some of the Department's "success stories," i.e. improvements to signs which have come about as a result of this Ordinance. In response to Mr. Finley's question about signs which are exempted from the requirement for a sign permit, Mr. Grady listed those which are exempt, e.g. a name sign on a residence, a residential address sign, a temporary directional sign, a Private ,2-P-Y 10-7-97 E:7 Drive sign, commemorative plaques, etc. Staff confirmed that a church sign, in an agricultural district, would require a permit. Mr. Tice asked if the Ordinance addresses the illumination of signs. Ms. McCulley said there is little mention of illumination. She said the ARB will review illumination. The Ordinance does disallow search lights. No suggested changes to the proposed amendments were made by Commissioners. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Signs, as proposed by staff in the report presented to the Commission at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission commended staff for their work on these amendments. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Hirschman reminded the Commission of a field trip to the Lickinghole Basin on October 10th. Commissioners Finley and Tice stated their intent to participate. Ms. Huckle thanked Mr. Hirschman for his organization of the recent field trip on the reservoir. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. P: M O-W I . V. Wayne ilimberg, Se ry R130