HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 08 1996 PC Minutes10-8-96
OCTOBER 8, 1-996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
-October 8, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Buttdmg, Charbttesvitte, Virginia.
Those members -present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice
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. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy
Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Washington and Finley.
The meeting was caned to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of September 24, 1996 were unanimously approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA - SUB-96-069 and SUB-96-070 Lake Reynovia Phases V and
V1 (Manor Homes) Final Subdivision Plat - Final Plat for the creation of 74 lots
averaging 0.15 acres and approximately 4 acres of open space on an 18 acre portion
of the Lake Reynovia Development (Planning Commission review of the final plat is a
condition of the Preliminary Plat approval). Property, described as Tax Map 90D,
Parcel A (part), is located at the Lake Reynovia Residential Development on the west
side of Avon Street Extended, approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 64, in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is zoned R-4 with proffers and is
designated for Low Density Residential use in Urban Area Neighborhood 4.
Because an adjacent property owner (Michael Kinter) had requested that the
Commission discuss this item, Mr. Lilley presented a brief staff report. Staff
recommended approval of the final plat.
Mr. Lilley explained that Mr. Kinter feels this proposal is not in accordance with the
original Lake Reynovia approval because it allows "townhouses" to be located in an
area which was not specifically designated for townhouses on the 1988 Application
Plan and proffer #2 of the 1988 rezoning says "Any remaining allowable dwelling
units ... which are intended as townhouse units, may be placed only within the area
shown for townhouse units on the Application Plan."
Mr. Lilley explained that proffer #1 of the 1988 rezoning allowed modifications to the
Application Plan, including "reconfiguration of townhouse layout," and also stated that
"development will be undertaken in general conformance with the application plan
(preliminary plat). It was noted that some confusion has arisen from the fact that the
1988 Application Plan was referred to (and labeled) as "preliminary plat" in the 1988
proffers and then in 1989 the Reynovia "Preliminary Plat" was approved. The Zoning
Administrator made the determination that the 1989 Preliminary Plat was in general
41�
10-8-96
2
'- conformance with the 1988 Application Plan and rezoning. Staff confirmed that it is
normal procedure to allow some flexibility between the original rezoning application
plan and the final plat.
OR
Both the 1988 Application Plan and the 1989 Preliminary Plat were on display in the
meeting. Mr. Lilley pointed out the location of the proposed manor homes.
Ms. Huckle asked if persons who purchased lots in 1988, expecting only single family
detached dwellings in the area now to be developed with manor homes, had any legal
recourse. Mr. Lilley explained that lots could not have been purchased until after the
1989 approval because "they could not have bought a lot until after it was divided
which would have happened after the preliminary plat and final plat were done later in
1989."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Raynor. He said the final plat meets the
conditions of the preliminary plat approval. He asked the Commission to approve the
final plat.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Mike Kinter addressed the Commission. He noted that staff seems to base its
position on proffer #1 (1988), though proffer #2 (1988) states "specific limitations as to
what can be done on the property (including)... townhouse units, may be placed only
within the area shown for townhouse units on the Application Plan." He also pointed
out that condition #1 of the approval for the 1989 Preliminary Plat required
"Commission site plan approval for townhouses prior to subdivision plat approval for
townhouses." He concluded: "What you are asked to approve today has townhouses
in an area that is not in this Application Plan. The Preliminary Plat does not have
anything in that area so there was no way to determine that the Preliminary Plat
violated the Application Plan. There seems to be a willingness (on the part of the
county) to be very flexible in an area I don't see there is room for flexibility."
Mr. Nitchmann noted that proffers 1 and 2 in 1988 seem to be contradictory. He
asked how staff had decided which had priority. Mr. Kamptner responded: "Proffer #1
does grant the leeway to revise the application plan. Proffer #2 states what was
approved originally. #1 recognizes that amendment was possible." Mr. Lilley added:
"My understanding was the concern at that time was the townhouse portion be kept to
the interior of Reynovia rather than abut to Mill Creek. There was concern from the
Mill Creek residents that Reynovia would come all the way to the Reynovia property
line." Mr. Lilley confirmed that the "area" shown for townhouses was expanded a little
and it was the Zoning Administrator's determination that the 1989 Preliminary Plat was
in accord with the 1988 Application Plan.
(7
10-8-96 3
Ms. Huckle thought the wording in the 1988 proffers was "ambiguous," with the only
clear language being that "townhouse units may be placed only within the area shown
for townhouse units...."
Mr. Loewenstein thought the wording "reconfiguration of townhouse layout" was also
ambiguous. Does it mean the location can be moved or does it mean "they be placed
on the originally assigned location, but in a different manner?"
Mr. Cilimberg called attention to additional "open-ended" language in proffer #1 (1988)
which says "Such modifications to the plan may include but not be limited to ... (e)
other revisions as proposed by County staff and Planning Commission and agreed to
by the applicant." He said there had been a lot of "open-ended aspects" to this
approval and the Zoning Administrator had to make a determination. That
determination was made seven years ago and again in June of 1996 when the
preliminary subdivision plat for the Manor Homes was approved. Staff is not aware of
any grounds for any action other than approval of the Final Subdivision Plat. The
applicant has met all the conditions of the Preliminary approval and there are no
grounds for denial. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the 1988 plan had shown the area
in question as being for "townhouses OR single family dwellings" and the 1989 plan
had shown the area as being for single family dwellings. That may have been the
basis for the Zoning Administrator's determination that the 1989 plan was in general
accord with the 1988 plan. He also reminded the Commission that single family can
N*ft.W` mean both "attached" or "detached" dwellings. This project is for single family
"attached" dwellings, not for townhouses. If the proposal were for townhouses, a site
plan would be required.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner to explain why proffer #2 (1988) had included the
statement that "townhouses may be placed only in the area shown for townhouses."
Mr. Loewenstein was concerned about this also.
Mr. Kamptner said any explanation he could give would only be speculation. Mr.
Cilimberg explained: "If we had received a site plan for townhouses, it may have
called in the question of whether or not we had an inconsistency. We've never had a
site plan for townhouses."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked if the concerns which were raised about drainage problems in the
development at the June public hearing have been addressed. (Mr. Kinter responded
to this question saying "Everything is going much better.")
There was a discussion of the definitions and differences of single family attached,
detached, duplexes, manor homes and townhouses. Mr. Raynor offered the following
a,
10-8-96 4
information, which had been supplied to him by County zoning staff employee Jan
Sprinkle. (The definitions have been used by the County for 10-15 years to
distinguish dwelling unit types for land use and building permit purposes.) A single
family detached is one dwelling on one lot. A single family attached is one building on
two lots with the center, separating wall being placed on the joint property line
between the two lots. The property owners own their lots and dwellings individually,
though the dwellings are attached by a common center wall. He stressed that manor
homes fit this definition. They are not townhouses, which is one building with three or
more dwelling units. Duplexes are two dwelling units on one lot.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Kamptner to comment on Mr. Cilimberg's earlier statement
that there are no grounds to deny the final plat. Mr. Kamptner agreed with Mr.
Cilimberg's statement. He said: "According to staff, all conditions of the preliminary
plat have been satisfied. There is no evidence to indicate that any conditions have
not been satisfied." Mr. Tice asked what options are available to the Reynovia
residents if the final plat is approved. Mr. Kamptner said the Commission's action
could be appealed to the Board but the Board will be under the same limitations as
the Commission, i.e. "the conditions have been satisfied, they have no grounds for
denying the plat." Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks it is too late for an appeal of the
Zoning Administrator's 1989 determination to be filed. An appeal must be filed with
the BZA within 30 days of a decision.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what would happen if the Commission, as an act of "goodwill"
decided to deny the application. Mr. Kamptner said: "The applicant would have the
ability to appeal this to the Board of Supervisors or to Circuit Court. There is the risk
of other liability, not only to the County but to Commissioners... if the action (of the
Commission) was found to be willful misconduct." There is also the risk that a denial
could be considered a "taking of the property." Mr. Cilimberg added that when a plan
is denied there must be reasons clearly stated for that denial, including a specific
citing of ordinance regulations so that the applicant can address and correct
deficiencies.
Mr. Kamptner confirmed the Reynovia residents could take the matter to court if they
so choose, provided the matter is filed within 30 days of the action.
Ms. Huckle said this is a good example of the reason why everything should be well
understood before it is approved.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Lake Reynovia Phases V
and VI (Manor Homes) Final Subdivision Plat be approved.
Comments:
EM
5
10-8-96
Mr. Dotson noted that he had just realized that one of the two applicants for this
project in 1988 is a faculty member in the department which he chairs at UVA. He
declared: (1) He had no knowledge of that association until this meeting; and (2)
That relationship has no influence on his vote so he is able to render a fair and
objective decision. He said he has no financial interest in the development
whatsoever.
Referring to Ms. Huckle's comment that everything
e a has stated#be very staff ismulear ch more before
careful
approved, Mr. Nitchmann said Mr. C g as
about ensuring that language is clearly understandable now than nprevious years.
Mr. Nitchmann said he could find no grounds to den the application.
Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that the applicant will make the manor homes as
attractive as possible so as not to "damage the neighborhood."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
WORK SESSION - Mountain Protection Plan
Mr. Tice, who served on this committee, distributed copies of comments about the
proposed ordinance from various groups and individuals.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report and led the discussion. She explained the
process and the basis for the recommendations made in the report. Her report
included a discussion of existing regulations and how they may impact the eight areas
of mountain resources discussed in the report and also "gaps" in existing regulations.
"Gaps" identified in the current process included the following:
--Topo is not required on plans which are submitted with building permit
applications.
--How will "existing undivided parcels" be handled?
--Current soil erosion "agreement" is not adequate for building on mountain
sides. A soil erosion "plan" should be required for areas in the mountain protection
overlay. An erosion permit should be required for the driveway and the house site.
--There are currently no driveway standards. Driveways can go on 25% slopes.
Driveways would have to be shown on a soil erosion plan.
--Building sites are not shown on plats so that their locations are clearly
--The ridge tops need to be mapp
identifiable.
Staff identified two specific issues for discussion at this work session:
17d
10-8-96 6
(1) Are the selected contours too low? Was the basis used for establishing those
lines (i.e. the point at which the critical slopes begin) a rational one? Mr. Kamptner
said a court would look at the process which was followed in determining the contour
lines to determine if it was a rational process. He said it appeared the committee had
performed an exhaustive study and a rational process in making its recommendation.
(2) is the maximum slope recommended for driveways (16%) acceptable? This
recommendation was based on the ability of emergency vehicles to reach the property
and on soil erosion reduction. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering, said the
County's ordinances do not define what "adequate access" means. That issue needs
to be addressed if more development is to occur in mountainous areas. Regarding
the 16% maximum he said: "We don't see that as necessarily being the only way of
eliminating degradation. There are situations where vehicles can go steeper than 16%-
-e.g. on a paved driveway short distances can be accomplished at 20% or even 25%.
He said: "We must make sure that whatever standard is set is reasonable and that
some flexibility and discretion is worked into it." It was his recommendation "to allow
some discretion to allow (driveways) up to a maximum of 20%." It was also his
recommendation that any section of driveway above 15% be "surface treated." This
would reduce erosion. Mr. Kelsey explained that a maximum of 16% is more stringent
than what is currently allowed for "a private road serving two lots," which is simply that
it be "passable by a passenger vehicle in all but inclement weather."
Referring to Mr. Kelsey's statement (in his written comments) that he "questions the
application of a public road standard to a private driveway," Ms. Huckle said she feels
it is more important to have standards for private driveways because public roads are
Geared and maintained by the State whereas private driveways are maintained by
amateur owners without proper equipment.
Mr. Nitchmann said the recommendation would have to be refined considerably, and
defined clearly, before he would be comfortable supporting a certain maximum
driveway slope.
Commission comments and questions included the following:
--How many of existing mountain parcels are "long standing--20 or more years --
vs. how many have come into being in recent years? (Dotson)
--Who will be responsible for building site inspections to make sure a site is in
an "acceptable" location, that it is not above the contour line? Mr. Nitchmann was
concerned about added costs to the average home builder, "the people who don't
have money." Mr. Tice said he thought this probably would not be difficult to
determine and would not necessarily require a survey.
--What is the cost, to an individual home builder, of developing a soil erosion
plan? (Nitchmann) (Mr. Kelsey estimated the cost would be $400-$500.)
--Who is going to make a determination of what is "reasonable" access?
(Nitchmann)
7�
10-8-96 7
--Would the flexibility to allow a driveway of greater than 16% be a staff
determination or could it be a Commission determination? (Dotson) Mr. Kamptner said
this would typically be dealt with by staff unless it was tied to some other issue which
would normally require Commission review. However, the Commission can establish
the criteria on which an exception may be allowed. It was pointed out this will be part
of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, which is handled by the Engineering
Department. Mr. Cilimberg said he was not aware of any waivers that are possible for
erosion and sediment control.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. FRi&Lgh Riley, a member of the Mountain Protection Committee, addressed the
Commission. He said he had been designing and building roads for 20 years, and
teaching road design for 15 years. In all that time he has not seen a planning or
engineering standard which recommends a slope as steep as 20% for a driveway
road. The Engineering Department has been unable to show him the existence of
such a standard. He explained the reasons the Committee supported a 16%
maximum slope on driveways:
--16% is currently the steepest road allowed by VDOT standards.
--"A 15% slope approaches the limit an ordinary vehicle can climb for a
sustained period." (taken from article by Kevin Lynch on Site Planning)
-- "The building pad must be designed so that the grade on the driveway does
not exceed 15%. (B.C. Colley in Manual of Site Develooment Rights)
-- "Absolute Maximum Grade - 17% Use only for ramps, access roads,
driveways." (Edwin Sealy in Design Data Book -for Civic Engineers)
--The steepest gradient recommended by the Institute for Traffic Engineers is
15%.
--The steepest gradient recommended for logging roads under the Best
Management Practice is 15%. (The Mountain Protection Plan proposes no control on
logging roads.)
On the Committee's recommendation, he concluded: "While the Committee is
very sympathetic to the objective of limiting initial grading as much as possible, I think
we feel any short term advantage of constructing a driveway steeper than 16% would
be more than offset by the long term damage caused by faster runoff rates, not to
mention additional hazard to emergency vehicles and others using the driveway....
The Committee believes that 16% is justifiable for new driveways by the standards
from VDOT, by established site planning and engineering standards and by applicable
ordinances from other locations. A 20% standard in some mountainous areas lacks a
solid justification. It is not necessary and would create long term environmental
impact." Speaking personally, Mr. Riley said he could not support Mr. Kelsey's
recommendation that driveways be allowed as steep as 20%, if all areas above 15%
are paved. He said this indicates to him that Mr. Kelsey believes that driveways
steeper than 15%, if unpaved, are not stable. Paving roads will just increase the rate
of runoff, i.e. "more water will come off the road, faster." He said he did not think a
79
10-8-98
8
standard should be established which would encourage more pavement in the
mountain areas. Mr. Riley said he thought driveways greater than 16% should only be
allowed in unique circumstances (such as an already existing, stable driveway), with
approval being granted through an appeal process. He suggested the language in
the ordinance be adjusted to define a 16% gradient as "16 feet of vertical rise in 100
feet of horizontal length of driveway." He felt this would allow for some "localized
flexibility" which everyone agrees is important. He gave as an example "a driveway
could be steeper than 16% for a short stretch, as long as it averages 16% over 100
feet."
On the issue of staff time, Mr. Riley did not think the committee's recommendations
would result in an enormous burden because they involve items which are not difficult
to check. He also pointed out that the number of properties which will fall under this
review process is very low.
Mr. John Elliott, owner of mountain property (with an existing dwelling) off Bloomfield
Road, addressed the Commission. He said he believes his driveway is more than 15
"degrees" and he has never had any problem. He objected to a limit of 15 "degrees."
He also said the road is solid rock and is better than a paved road. Though Mr. Elliott
believed that much of Rt. 250 between Charlottesville and Richmond is greater than
15%, Mr. Riley corrected him and said none of that road approaches 15%. Mr. Elliott
also expressed concern about the public notice process. He said he had been unable
to obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance and therefore "had no idea what you are
trying to do to my property." He said he had only 6 acres which would fall under the
proposed ordinance, but he objected to limitations on his possible use of that property.
To give a better understanding of grades, Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that 1-64 over
Afton Mt. is less than 6% grade. He also pointed out that a 15% grade is not the
same as 15 degrees. Grade percentages are "amount of rise over a certain distance."
Mr. Gerald Fisher addressed the Commission. He explained that the VDOT 16% is
"t
o allow school buses, garbage trucks, moving vans, snow plows, and other similar
vehicles to work around parked cars and with pedestrian traffic and all other factors
you have in a normal subdivision on a public street." He said this is not a factor with
a private driveway. He also explained that on his property (Herd's Mt.) there are
many old stabilized orchard roads and timber trails. He felt the use of these types of
roads should be encouraged, even if they are steeper than "some arbitrary number"
because allowing their use will result in much less soil disturbance than will the
construction of a new driveway.
Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, addressed
the Commission. He said it should be made clear in the draft ordinance that this
would not apply to every property which is above the 700 foot elevation line. He
asked that staff provide his organization with a copy of the data which had been
presented to the Commission on the number of existing parcels, etc. He said he
73
M
10-8-96
would address the issue of transfer of development rights at a future work session.
He said the BRHA was "generally in favor of supporting this type of ordinance." The
BRHA feels, however, that it is "premature to implement it at this time." Rather, if the
ordinance is passed, the implementation date should be deferred until after the study
of the Rural Areas has been completed.
Mr. Robert Bloch, a farmer in the Rivanna District, addressed the Commission. He
described how the passage of this type of ordinance might impact his ability to keep
his farm. In an effort to reduce the value of the property so as to make estates taxes
more affordable, he explained that he had recently put a large part of the property in a
conservation easement and given up all development rights above the 700 feet
contour. He said: "If we weren't able to give away those development rights above
700 feet because some administrative body took those rights away from us to begin
with, we would be forced to sell the farm now.... I don't know how important
preserving farmland is to this Commission or the Board of Supervisors, but anyone
who votes for restricting property rights as it relates to farmers --our only savings
account is that land --and if you're going to take away our rights to be able to use that
land or to be able to give it away or to sell it, then you're going to put us out of
business. If that's what you want, then please vote for the most restrictive ordinance
you can. And when the historical ordinance comes up, vote for the most restrictive
one you can so that we can just make an orderly rush for the exits and go on with our
lives."
Mr. Nitchmann thanked Mr. Bloch for his personal comments. He said he is always
trying to protect the rights of those individuals who might not be informed enough to
realize the impact some of these proposed ordinances may have on their land.
Ms. Huckle said she hoped there was some way all the positive effects of this type of
ordinance could be accomplished without negatively impacting farmers such as Mr.
Bloch, "who make the county what it is."
Mr. Tice said the Committee had worked extremely hard to make sure that nothing
that is proposed in this ordinance could be considered a "taking of property rights."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner if he agreed with Mr. Bloch's understanding of the
potential impact of this ordinance, i.e. "by losing the right to develop a certain piece of
property that you have lost the value of your property if you wanted to put it in a
permanent easement?" Mr. Kamptner was uncertain of the meaning of Ms. Huckle's
question. Mr. Bloch restated his concern: "If you've already taken away my right to
do something with my land, then I can't donate that right to the public good as a gift."
Mr. Kamptner asked: "What is the right that has been taken away?" Mr. Bloch
continued: "Any right. To build a house on a ridge top. If I'm not allowed to do that
because of legislation enacted in this county, then I cannot give the ability to build on
7�
10-8-96 10
that rudge top to a non-profit organization like the Virginia Outdoors Foundation
(VOF), for the public good, because I don't own that right any more."
Mr. Tice said the ordinance does not say that. He said if the ordinance said flatly that
"you cannot build in the mountains," then "that would be a serious concern, but the
ordinance does not say that."
Mr. Kamptner said every piece of property has some limitations on its use and no one
has the right to do anything they want to with the land. He said that an Overlay
District does add additional limitations, but "as to whether or not it makes a
conservation easement less valuable, it may have an effect, but I can't quantify it."
Mr. Dotson pointed out that there is an argument that by allowing less development
the value of the developable land is increased. He said it is a complicated issue as to
how you appraise the value now vs. under some alternative circumstance.
Mr. Kamptner said some of the proponents of this ordinance hope that, with enabling
legislation, these development rights can be transferred to other parts of the county
where growth is desirable. And people who own the property but may not be able to
use the development rights as they would like will be compensated.
Ms. Huckle suggested input should be sought from a "tax expert or appraisal expert"
about this particular issue so that there can be the "maximum benefit and the
minimum damage" from this ordinance.
Miscellaneous Comments:
--At some point during the consideration of this ordinance the impact on existing
staffing and workload is going to have to be studied. (Kelsey) Ms. Huckle said she felt
it would be much more cost effective to add a staff position which will prevent soil
erosion from occurring than to have to finance corrective measures for problems which
occur when drainage issues are not adequately addressed. (Mr. Tice pointed out the
Committee had been directed by the County Executive not to make any specific
recommendations about staffing needs but the Committee had been very sensitive to
that issue.)
The work session ended at 10:00 p.m. It was decided a second work session would
be scheduled for October 15.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
U OL� (ILY,&,
V. Wa a Cili berg, cretary
DB
76-