HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 17 1996 PC Minutes9-17-96
SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September
17, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; and Mr. Jared
Loewenstein. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development, Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior
Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Finley, Dotson and Washington.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the September 4th and September 11th Board of
Supervisors meetings.
CONSENT AGENDA - SDP-96-78 Photoworks Warehouse Major Amendment - Request
for modification of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning ordinance to allow construction/grading on
slopes of 25% or greater.
(Mr. Tice disclosed that his business rents office space from the applicant --in a separate
building on an adjoining parcel-- but is not connected in any way with the proposal before the
Commission. Because the County Attorney determined there is no conflict of interest he said
he felt he could render a fair and objective opinion on the request.)
The Commission had no concerns about the proposal.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Mountain Protection Plan - Presentation of plan by Mr. Tice, Chair of the Mountain
Protection Study Committee, and Mark Lorenzoni.
With the use of slides, Mr. Tice explained the process followed by the Committee in arriving
at the findings and the recommendations in the report.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick read introductory comments prepared by Ms. Page Gilliam, a member of
the Committee, who was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting. (Commission
members had received copies of this statement in advance.) Ms. Gilliam's statement
described the makeup of the Committee and the studies which the Committee performed in
the development of the report.
9-17-96 2
Mr. Mark Lorenzoni described how the Committee had studied the County process which a
homeowner must follow in order to build on mountaintop areas.
The Commission asked questions about one particular slide which showed a significant
erosion problem which has occurred with the driveway to a recently built dwelling. Mr. Tice
said he did not know if the proposed ordinance would have prevented the construction of the
home, but it would have led to improvements in the design of the driveway and minimization
of erosion.
The report identified the following major issues in relation to mountain protection:
--The impact to water quality which is caused by soil erosion on steep slopes. Much
of the county's water drains from the mountain areas.
--Debris slides which can result during heavy rains in areas where mountainsides are
unstable.
--Protection of economic resources which are related to mountain areas (forestry,
horticulture, agriculture, tourism, etc.).
--Protection of air quality and visibility, and the related issue of the "dark sky."
The Committee's report grouped its recommendations into three main areas: (1) Modify the
Zoning Ordinance, the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and related ordinances, to
develop a Mountain Overlay District; (2) Develop a Lighting Ordinance; and (3) Additional
Planning Tools (a broad area of suggestions for further study).
The Mountain Overlay District has five primary points: (1) The critical slopes are at such risk
of erosion from development that development activities within this district should have an
erosion control plan; (2) Where landowners have choices, dwellings should not be built on
the ridge, unless the landowner can prove to the County that their plan will protect the
mountain resources and satisfy the issues; (3) For parcels which "straddle the line" for this
district, where building sites exist outside the district, those sites should be favored for
construction activity, and small lot parcels should be designated outside the overlay district
where possible; (4) Require that final plats show the location of building sites; and (5)
Driveway design requirements must be such that they minimize erosion and provide for
public safety.
The main points of the proposed Lighting Ordinance are: (1) All outdoor lights over 5,000
lumens should be shielded and directed downward; and (2) In order to effectively protect the
night sky, the Lighting Ordinance should be county -wide.
"Additional planning tools" recommended for further study include:
--Learn more about our "natural heritage," i.e. "what rare and critical species are
present within the county and where do they exist."
--Land use assessment, which is a critical tool in helping landowners hold on to their
property in both mountain areas and the rural areas in general.
--Development of a brochure to assist landowners and builders who are considering
building in the mountain areas with ideas on how to design their homes so as to minimize
the impacts.
qS
9-17-96 3
--The Board should continue to urge the General Assembly to pass enabling
legislation which would allow a transfer of development rights program.
--A full cost accounting program which will help account for the value of the ecological
services that are provided by the rural areas.
--The possibility of increasing the large -lot size from 21 acres to 42 acres.
Ms. Rebecca Pettiburg, a member of the Albemarle Garden Club, read a statement prepared
by Ms. Elsie Thompson, Conservation Chairman for the Club. Her statement is made a part
of this record as Attachment A.
A University of Virginia Astronomer addressed the Commission. (His name was unclear.)
His comments were related to the proposed Lighting Ordinance. He recommended the
maximum lumens should be 4,000, rather than 5,000. He presented slides showing
examples of different types of lighting in various locations in the County.
Public comment was allowed.
Mr. David Wood, a life-long resident of the County, said he thought the Proposed Mountain
Protection Ordinance "has a lot of merit." However, he expressed concern about the
definition of a mountain. He noted that the proposed ordinance draws the elevation lines at
700 feet in the eastern part of the county, 800 feet in the middle of the county, and 900 feet
in the western part. He said he felt the level was too low. He listed various locations in the
County and the elevations of each: Farmington Country Club = 660 feet above sea level; the
old Crozet school = 700 feet; Western Albemarle High School = 680 feet; Whitehall Store =
720 feet; Airport runway = 634 feet; Boonesville = 750 feet; Earlysville = 646 feet. (These
places are mostly in the center of the county where 800 feet is proposed as the elevation
level to define a mountain.) He said he feels "we are being too strict in drawing these lines,"
and "if we try to reach too far, we will destroy the ordinance."
Mr. Joe Jones, a County resident and President of Albemarle County Farm Bureau,
addressed the Commission. He felt the proposed ordinance has many merits, particularly
the lighting recommendations. However, he expressed concern about the proposal to
change the lot size from 21 acres to 42 acres. He said the Farm Bureau Board does not
support such a change until a Transfer of Development Rights program can be put in place.
(He said the Farm Bureau does not support a Purchase of Development Rights program.)
He concluded: "I can agree with everything in the plan, even to locating the division rights
below the elevation levels as long as the division rights aren't reduced. We object to any
further reduction in division rights on the property we currently own."
Mr. Rick Beyer, developer of Ashcroft, addressed the Commission. He said he supported
much of the proposed Ordinance, particularly the lighting component. He agreed with Mr.
Wood that the elevation levels should be higher. He agreed that there must be measures to
prevent erosion and that the ridges should be protected. When asked what elevation level
he could support, Mr. Beyer said he was not prepared to answer without having given the
question more thought. (NOTE: Mr. Wood suggested 100 feet be added to each of the
three sections.)
V�
9-17-96
4
There being no further comment, the work session on the Mountain Protection Ordinance
ended at 8:20. A second work session is scheduled for October 8, 1996. It was anticipated
at least a third work session will be needed before the proposed ordinance is prepared for
public hearing.
WORK SESSION
Amendments to Site Plan Section of Zoning Ordinance for Administrative Approval
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report explained the purpose of the proposed
amendments is to "codify the administrative review process (as it relates to the processing of
applications) for site plans and subdivision and to bring the procedural aspects of the
ordinances into conformance with current requirements of the Code of Virginia."
Staff answered the Commission's questions about the proposed amendments, particularly
about the notification process. Staff stressed that the County has always provided more
notification than is required by the Code of Virginia.
Questions raised by the Commission included the following:
--Page 9, second paragraph: "Such demand shall be filed in writing in the office of the
agent within ten (10) days of the date of the mailing of notification as required pursuant to
section 32.4.2.5." Ms. Huckle asked if this also applies to Commission members, i.e. do
Commissioners need to respond by mail? After some discussion it was decided this
language would be amended so as to allow Commissioners to make such a request (1) In
writing, as stated; or (2) Verbally, if done during a public hearing and shown in the record of
that meeting. If there is a situation where the Commission's schedule is such that a meeting
may not be scheduled within the 10-day period, then the request should be made in writing
so as to avoid misunderstanding. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a request would have to be
made in time to allow staff to get reports to the Commission on its regular schedule. Ms.
Huckle asked how much notice staff needs. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "It would be either
verbally on the record of a meeting or by mail, within 10 days of the mailing of the
notification, (which would be 19 days after the Commission has received notice of the item)."
--Mr. Nitchmann asked if any of these amendments address situations where final site
plans may be different than approved preliminary plans. Mr. Keeler said once plans have
been approved, changes cannot be made unless they are authorized in writing by the agent.
He said the ordinance is written so that "once a plan is submitted, the only changes that
should be made are those which are requested by the Site Review Committee. Changes
which may be recommended by the ARB should be addressed at the preliminary review
stage. Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission could still see the final site plan if so desired.
Though Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively, Mr. Keeler explained: "I don't think it envisions if
staff approves the preliminary administratively, I'm not sure there is provision in here for the
Commission to call up the final." Mr. Tice pointed out if the Commission has asked to see
the preliminary plan, it can still see the final. Staff acknowledged this was correct.
--Mr. Nitchmann wondered why some of the suggested lighting regulations could not
be made a part of this set of amendments. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "This set of
amendments was the product of a resolution of intent last year that was to deal with all the
�47
9-17-96 5
housekeeping and codifying the administrative process with Code requirements. We focused
there. There is another resolution now for the lighting provisions and 1 think that can come
forward as part of the overall lighting recommendations to the Board to be handled as
another amendment." Ms. Huckle asked if these amendments will address lighting at
individual homes. Mr. Cilimberg said that will be covered under General Regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance, which is not subject to this particular set of amendments. Ms. Huckle
asked if these regulations will place limitations on lighting which is already in existence. Mr.
Cilimberg said an existing condition will always be grandfathered. Mr. Kamptner said staff is
going to be looking at the regulations dealing with grandfathered uses at a later time.
--Mr. Tice asked if any part of these amendments will have any impact on the 60-day
time limit for acting on requests, which the Commission sometimes finds it is "pushing
against." Mr. Kamptner said even though the 60 days has not changed, this ordinance
includes the provision in the State law which says the "clock starts running when the plan is
officially submitted." That date has been determined to be the actual submittal deadline date
(not the date the plan is submitted in the office), so this may offer some additional time. Mr.
Keeler added that more time is allowed if a State agency (such as VDOT) is involved in the
review.
--Page 20, Section 32.7.1.1 - Ms. Huckle asked if this could be "delegated." She
noted that the words "or the agent" have been added. Mr. Keeler responded: "Since the
Code does not require the Planning Commission approval of the site plan, it would follow if
the agent can approve the plan, then the agent would be providing this review." Mr.
Cilimberg added: "Which in turn must be forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors." Mr.
Kamptner said he would review this section for further discussion at the next work session.
At Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Kamptner identified major sections of the amendments which
are particular to satisfy State Code changes: Page 7, Section 32.4.2.1; Page 10, Section
32.4.2.6; Pages 12 & 13, Section 32.4.3.8; Page 20, Section 32.7.1.2 ; Page 24, Section
32.7.3.3 All are related to Section 15.1-475 of the Code.
Mr. Tom Gale, a member of the Design Review Committee, addressed the Commission. He
said he had some minor questions about some parts of the amendments. He asked if there
was still time to bring these items up before the Site Review Team. As an example, Mr.
Gale said the Committee had recommended that for drainage and grading purposes,
contours should be shown to the property line "and sufficiently beyond the property line to
insure for a proper review." He said these amendments arbitrarily require that contours be
shown 50 feet beyond the property line (reduced from 200 feet). He said he had no problem
if that information is required after site review, but he did not think it should be required
without reason. Another minor concern is the requirement that plans be oriented North. He
said there are a few cases where a different orientation may be better. It was decided Mr.
Gale would meet with staff to discuss his concerns. Mr. Cilimberg said it sounded as though
Mr. Gale's concerns were related to procedure and he felt his concerns could be addressed.
Mr. Keeler said the recommendations from the Design Review Committee will be presented
to the Commission, with staff comments and recommendations.
yy
9-17-96 6
Ms. Huckle said she had several questions which needed clarification. It was decided the
Commission would give their written comments to staff. Staff will address these comments
when finalizing the amendments.
It was decided staff would do a final draft of the proposed amendments reflecting the
comments of the Commission, including the necessary parallel changes in the Subdivision
Ordinance, and then schedule the amendments for public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner advised that an amendment to the Commission's original Resolution of Intent
(which was limited to codifying the administrative process) was called for in order to expand
it to include State Code revisions.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved that the Resolution of Intent previously adopted by the
Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance to codify the
administrative process, be amended to incorporate State Code changes and items related to
plat content. Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
OR
M:
MR
Wayne ilimberg a tary
Ll9