HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 11 1995 PC Minutesom
7-11-95
JULY 11, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July
11, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other
officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Dotson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established.
Mr. Keeler briefly reviewed the Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 5, 1995. He
announced the appointment of Mr. Samuel "Pete" Anderson, who will replace Mr. Tom
Leback as UVA's liaison to the Planning Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP-95-053 Federal Express Phase IV Preliminary Site Plan - Modification of
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow grading on slopes of 25% or greater
and allowance under Section 32.7.4 of direct discharge of stormwater to the South Fork
Rivanna River without stormwater detention.
Ms. Imhoff asked staff to explain why sites "connected to the river" do not have to do
on -site detention. Mr. Blue responded: "It's a quantity rather than a quality situation.
The Rivanna River is recognized as a main drainage channel for the area and if you get
the water into the river fast, before the water from upstream comes down, and reduce
the peak flow, it is better environmentally. On the other hand, there is no treatment of
the quality, but I do not believe we have any ordinance that requires that other than in
the watershed area for the reservoir."
Ms. Huckle asked the Engineering Department to address the issue of slope
stabilization. She asked specifically if a bond will be required to ensure stabilization.
Mr. Glen Brooks responded affirmatively. He explained that stabilization will be
addressed through the Erosion Control Permit and bond and "during the temporary
construction phase it is handled through a measure such as silt fences and silt basins."
Ms. Huckle asked if it is possible to withhold a Certificate of Occupancy to ensure that
the stabilization takes place. Mr. Brooks said the Erosion Control bond will not be
released until stabilization has been established.
� �9
7-11-95 2
Mr. Blue commented: "I think the main point to get on record is that we would like to
make sure that that happens."
Ms. Imhoff commented: "With regard to the direct discharge, ... we all live
downstream, and I think long-term we need to be more conscious of the water quality
going into the Rivanna because it becomes someone else's drinking water a fairly short
distance down the Rivanna. I am not sure this is the time to deal with it, but long-term,
we need to be more sensitive." Mr. Brooks said that the Water Resources Ordinances
are currently under revision and he felt Ms. Imhoff concern could be raised through
the public meeting process. He suggested Ms. Imhoff contact Mr. David Hirschmann,
the Water Resources Manager.
Mr. Blue said there are some Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority lines which can be
effected by this project. He hoped there were plans for the Albemarle County Service
Authority to notify the RWSA of this project. Mr. Brooks did not know whether the
RWSA had been notified, but he said he would make them aware of the project.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Federal Express
Phase IV Preliminary Site Plan be approved, including modifications to Sections 4.2.3.2
and 32.7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
114aw The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-17 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Proposal to establish a 60-
bed inpatient acute medical rehabilitation facility on approximately 49 acres zoned CO,
Commercial Office [23.2.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax Map 76, parcels 17B and
17131 is the location of the Fontaine Research Park located on the south side of
Fontaine Avenue in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is recommended for
Community Service in Neighborhood 6.
Staff was requesting deferral to August 1, 1995, because the applicant failed to post
placards.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-95-17 be deferred to
August 1, 1995.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-18 Benny Thacker - Proposal to establish a Home Occupation Class B on
approximately 89 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(31)]. Property, described as
Tax Map 118, Parcels 32 and 33 is located on a private road approximately 1000 feet
7-11-95 3
�. west of Route 630 and approximately 1.6 miles north of Route 6 in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area
3).
Mr. Blue called attention to the sketch of the property, designated as Attachment A of
the staff report, which implied that he had prepared the sketch. He explained: "This
was a Xerox copy of a plat I made over 26 years ago of an adjoining property, but it
copied my name and my seal and then (someone else) drew in some property lines
and located a number of structures (on the drawing). I want the record to show that I
had absolutely nothing to do with this. It is not my sketch and what I did was over 26
years ago on an adjoining property."
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff has reviewed the
request in accord with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. With appropriate
conditions to address entrance and roadway concerns the use should not be obtrusive
to the area due to limited truck traffic."
Mr. Keeler added: "The road improvements that are recommended by the
Engineering Department cannot occur within the existing 20-foot easement. It would
require additional easement for that purpose and it would be incumbent upon the
applicant to obtain that additional right-of-way from the property owners on the road."
1*4W Mr. Keeler explained that two letters received from property owners along the road
were related to concerns about tractor -trailers on the road. Staff felt that "six
deliveries/year would not be an excessive volume." He added: "idle did recommend
improving the road. But let me make it clear that if any of the property owners from
whom the applicant would need to obtain additional easements (are not agreeable),
that issue is between the applicant and those property owners."
ER
Ms. Imhoff said she did not think home occupations were meant to include on -site
storage for work done elsewhere. She said: "I am a little confused as to why this on -
site storage would meet a home occupation definition."
Mr. Keeler said he believes there have been several Class B occupation permits
issued to contractors, which may involve storage of materials or storage of equipment.
The applicant, Mr. Benny Thacker, addressed the Commission. He explained that he
would be storing siding, which he would then carry from the site, on his pick-up truck,
to his job sites. His answers to Commission questions included the following:
--The storage building does not currently exist. It will be built. Though no
partition between the farm machinery section and the siding is planned, a partition
could be constructed if so directed by the Commission.
Hof
cm
n
7-11-95 4
--These plans have not been discussed with all the users of the road. He said:
It they want to make some kind of road agreement, that would be fine with me. I would
pay 70-75% of the maintenance."
--The cost of obtaining easements for sight distance has not been determined.
--The applicant's purchase of this property is contingent upon the approval of the
special permit.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Leurs, a property owner on the road, (though not an adjoining property owner),
addressed the Commission. He expressed concern that the users of the road had not
received notice of this petition. He presented a petition of opposition which contained
17 signatures. He expressed strong concern about tractor -trailer traffic on the road. He
described the environmental degradation which would be the result of meeting VDOT's
recommendations. He said approval of this request would be devastating to this
neighborhood.
Six other people expressed their agreement with Mr. Leur's comments by standing
when invited to do so by Mr. Leur.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he had visited the site and found this to be a beautiful
neighborhood. He described what he thought were the main problems with the request.
He said he thought it would be impossible to obtain sight distance on Rt. 630 because
of the existence of a cemetery on the corner. He also had been told the property owner
on the opposite side would not be willing to grant an easement for the sight distance.
He said the property owners on the road "like it the way it is," and he felt the addition of
tractor -trailers to the traffic would cause significant damage to the road. He said he
could not support this request because he did not think it would be fair to the existing
neighborhood and because of the significant obstructions to being able to meet VDOT
sight distance requirements.
Ms. Imhoff agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. She felt there were good reasons to deny the
request, with one reason being item (d) under Home Occupations: "No traffic shall be
generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood." She felt 6 tractor -trailer trucks a year and the
on -going removal of the materials from the site, "clearly exceeds what you would
normally have in a residential neighborhood." She felt this was a basis for denial. Ms.
Imhoff also said she felt the Home Occupation regulations need to be "tightened up."
She felt they should be "truly home occupations which are done within the home which
do not generate a lot of impacts on the neighbors and the community."
SOA
7-11-95 5
Ms. Huckle agreed with both Commissioners Nitchmann and Imhoff. She felt this
business was totally inappropriate for this neighborhood.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-18 for Benny Thacker be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-19 Gabrielle and Eugenia Rausse - Proposal to establish a stream crossing in
the floodplain of Slate Quarry Creek [30.3.5.2(2)]. Property, described as Tax Map 103,
parcel 43K consists of approximately 76 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. This
property is located on the east side of Route 627 approximately 1.1 miles south of
Route 795 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated
growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Ms. Imhoff asked if condition No. 6 would require that any future divisions would have
to access only to Rt. 627 and not to the other road, or is it if they go out towards Rt.
627, they would use the stream crossing?" She said she was trying to determine if it
would be possible for "them to ever divide off and use Rt. 795. Mr. Keeler responded:
"I think the intent (of No. 6) is if they go out across the stream, they use this bridge. If
they go out some other way, then this condition would have no effect. It could depend
on somebody else's reading of that condition, though."
Ms. Huckle asked for a description of a low-water stream crossing, including how often
it is anticipated the crossing will be unusable. Mr. Keeler responded: "Mr. Brooks will
have to answer that question. We have no design requirement for the bridge to be
usable for a ten-year or twenty-five year or hundred -year storm --not for these individual
parcels. If this were to serve a 50-lot subdivision, then they would either have to design
to accommodate a 100-year storm, or have a secondary access to it. But for individual
driveways, that is not a requirement."
Ms. Huckle asked what will happen if the property is subdivided in the future. Mr.
Keeler responded: When you get to the number of lots on a private road that requires
VDOT Mountainous Terrain Standards, the whole VDOT manual comes into effect. I
don't know for a small subdivision what the design storm is."
Ms. Imhoff asked: "What defines a small subdivision? It looks as though they have at
least 6 development rights. When do the VDOT standards get triggered?" Mr. Keeler
replied: "Mountainous Terrain Standards for a private road get triggered at 6 lots."
0 -3
7-11-95 6
Mr. Blue pointed out this design was prepared by a Certified Landscape Architect and it
was his understanding that a CLA could do work only that was "incidental to the
landscape project." He asked counsel: "Is the protection of the public, or even the
applicant, sufficient to have someone who may not be qualified... submit this design?"
Mr. Davis responded: "Our Ordinance doesn't specifically have any standards as to
who has to submit drawings for our consideration, but the conditions of approval that
are recommended require that the Engineering Department have to be satisfied that the
plans meet their criteria. So it will certainly be something the Engineering Department
will look at as to the qualifications of the person submitting the plans and whether or not
the plans require a stamp or other engineering approval. So we take care of that at the
engineering level if you impose these conditions which are recommended."
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the issue of liability. He asked: "If our Engineering
Department decides to accept an architect's design and then it terms out, five or six
years from now, to be a very poor design. If it gets washed away would a new property
owner have recourse against the County?" Mr. Keeler responded: "There is a
disclaimer in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. This district was written to satisfy the
FEMA requirements and closely parrots the requirements of the Federal Register.
Included in there, in 30.3.8 is a warning and disclaimer of liability which says: 'This
Ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Albemarle County or any officer,
agency or employee thereof, for any flood damage that results from reliance on this
Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder." Mr. Davis added:
"And the County, as long as it is reasonable in it's deliberation on this, doesn't have
liability. It is not a strict liability situation where if something wrong happens we are held
responsible. Our immunity for this is a legislative process. We don't have any real risk
of liability as long as we are not grossly negligent. In this process, I don't believe that
that is a real danger."
Ms. Huckle again asked for a description of a low-water stream crossing. Mr. Brooks
said that a definition does not exist --it is discretionary. The Engineering Department
interprets it as being "lower than the 10-year storm, perhaps." It is designed not to
wash away in anything less than a 10-year storm.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Brooks to comment on the Engineering Department's acceptance of
plans from other than certified engineers. Mr. Brooks replied: "Our normal practice is
to require the professional seal of a Land Surveyor 3B, or an Engineer." He said it has
not been the County's practice to accept a plan from a Landscape Architect in the past,
but, "with these driveway crossings, there is concern that the application fees and
professional fees can be prohibitive." Mr. Blue added: "So you are bending over
backwards to be fair and since it is his driveway, it is his driveway which is going to
wash away." Mr. Brooks responded: "That's right."
En
09
7-11-95 6
Mr. Blue pointed out this design was prepared by a Certified Landscape Architect and
it was his understanding that a CLA could do engineering work only that was
"incidental to the landscape project." He asked counsel: "Is the protection of the
public, or protection of the applicant, sufficient reason to have someone legally
qualified to submit this design?" Mr. Davis responded: "Our Ordinance doesn't
specifically have any standards as to who has to submit drawings for our
consideration, but the conditions of approval that are recommended require that the
Engineering Department have to be satisfied that the plans meet their criteria. So it
will certainly be something the Engineering Department will look at as to the
qualifications of the person submitting the plans and whether or not the plans require
a stamp or other engineering approval. So we take care of that at the engineering
level if you impose these conditions which are recommended."
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the issue of liability. He asked: "If our Engineering
Department decides to accept an architect's design and then it turns out, five or six
years from now, to be a very poor design. If it gets washed away would a new
property owner have recourse against the County?" Mr. Keeler responded: "There is
a disclaimer in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. This district was written to satisfy
the FEMA requirements and closely parrots the requirements of the Federal Register.
Included in there, in 30.3.8 is a warning and disclaimer of liability which says: 'This
Ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Albemarle County or any officer,
agency or employee thereof, for any flood damage that results from reliance on this
Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder." Mr. Davis added:
"And the County, as long as it is reasonable in it's deliberation on this, doesn't have
liability. It is not a strict liability situation where if something wrong happens we are
held responsible. Our immunity for this is a legislative process. We don't have any
real risk of liability as long as we are not grossly negligent. In this process, I don't
believe that that is a real danger."
Ms. Huckle again asked for a description of a low-water stream crossing. Mr. Brooks
said that a definition does not exist --it is discretionary. The Engineering Department
interprets it as being "lower than the 10-year storm, perhaps." It is designed not to
wash away in anything less than a 10-year storm.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Brooks to comment on the Engineering Department's acceptance
of plans from other than certified engineers. Mr. Brooks replied: "Our normal practice
is to require the professional seal of a Land Surveyor 3B, or an Engineer." He said it
has not been the County's practice to accept a plan from a Landscape Architect in the
past, but, "with these driveway crossings, there is concern that the application fees
and professional fees can be prohibitive." Mr. Blue added: "So you are bending over
backwards to be fair and since it is his driveway, it is his driveway which is going to
wash away." Mr. Brooks responded: "That's right."
S65
7-11-95 7
fir'
Ms. Imhoff felt that was an acceptable approach if only one household was using the
crossing, but she suggested that the Engineering Department consider having "some
higher level of professional drawing" when multiple users are involved. (Mr. Davis said
the requirement for a higher level professional drawing could be added as a condition of
approval if that was the desire of the Commission.)
09
Mr. Brooks confirmed that the main concerns of the Engineering Department are that
the crossing not cause water to back up on someone else's property and that it does
not change the character of the stream and negatively impact the surrounding
environment.
Addressing the issue of possible future subdivision of the property and additional users
of this crossing, Mr. Jenkins commented: "You can't be saved from yourself. If you
cross that bridge and buy property and it washes out, then maybe next time you'll think
about it (more carefully)."
Mr. Blue was under the impression that the County would have to approve any further
subdivision of the property and the issue of the low-water bridge could be addressed at
that time. However, Mr. Keeler said that for any subdivision of less than 50 lots, "it is
the Engineering Departments call using VDOT standards. Mr. Blue then asked Mr.
Brooks: "So if you get a request for a subdivision on this property, will the existence of
this bridge have any effect on your recommendation as to whether or not the
subdivision should be approved?" Mr. Brooks answered: "As far as we are concerned
it would only have to meet VDOT standards which call for 18 inches of freeboard, from
the road, in a 10-year storm."
Ms. Huckle felt a condition should be added saying that the bridge would have to be
upgraded before any subdivision of the property could occur. She asked how Mr.
Brooks would phrase such a condition. He replied: "It would have to be accessible
during the 10-year storm."
The applicant, Ms. Eugenia Rausse, addressed the Commission. She explained the
architect had made the drawing using the standards she had gotten from the County
Engineering Department. She said the pipes are actually larger than were
recommended by the Engineering Department. She said it was her understanding that
if there were more than 2 houses on the property, the bridge would have to meet a
different standard. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, she confirmed that an
Engineer has studied the watershed area for this particular stream crossing. Ms.
Huckle asked if the pipes were designed to accommodate all the water in the
watershed. Ms. Rausse responded: "These pipes were not designed to accommodate
all the water. This is a low-water bridge which is designed to not wash away, but to let
the water wash over the bridge."
366
7-11-95 8
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said his only concern was about the possibility of future subdivision of
the property. He wanted to be sure the County had the ability to ensure that the proper
crossing would be installed at that time. He agreed with Mr. Jenkins, however, that
people should be aware of what they are buying. He did not think the crossing would
cause any downstream problems.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis how a condition could be worded which would address
future subdivision. Mr. Davis responded: "Based on what Mr. Brooks has said the only
reason you would need that condition would be if you want it designed at greater than
VDOT standards. There would be two ways to deal with it. One way would be to limit
this permit so that it's not valid if the property is further subdivided and that would
require the applicant to come back before you ... to modify the permit and you could look
at it at that time. The other approach would be to have the Engineering Department
recommend a more appropriate standard than what would otherwise be required. I
don't know what that is."
Mr. Blue asked how the County could require more than the VDOT standards. Mr.
Davis responded: "You would have to have a reason to do that under the
circumstances that are applicable to this particular piece of property. I don't know what
that justification is at this point. Obviously there are some concerns about access if this
is subdivided into 6 lots. I think those are legitimate concerns, but whether or not
Engineering has a recommendation for a more safe standard than VDOT and can
justify that, we haven't explored that."
Ms. Huckle asked if a condition saying that this permit is valid only if no further
subdivision takes place would have to be justified. Mr. Davis responded: Sure. There
would have to be a legitimate reason to deny an amendment of it in the future if it was
requested. You would have to have a valid reason." Ms. Huckle said: "But you
wouldn't have to have a reason to put that condition in because it would be reviewed
later by somebody else." Mr. Davis said: "The only justification for that would be if you
were looking to assure that the conditions at the time of further subdivision were still
appropriate for a stream crossing at that location. There is no indication in the report
from the Engineering Department that that would change, based on the number of lots
served, as long as they could meet the VDOT standards for the stream crossing. We
have not identified any reason why it would change."
Mr. Nitchmann said he was going leave it up to the Engineering Department to decide
if the Landscape Architect was qualified to design the bridge.
0
7-11-95 9
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-95-19 for Gabriele
and Eugenia Rausse be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Water Resource Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment.
2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of the final driveway and culvert crossing
plans. These plans must clearly show the before and after construction 100-year flood
elevations and boundaries. The limits of the WRPA Buffer must be shown and labelled.
3. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State
agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses.
4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations.
These computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan or a single family
erosion control agreement.
6. All future divisions of Tax Map 103, Parcel 43K shall use this stream crossing for
access to Route 627.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle said she could support the request if it was for the applicant's use only, but
she did not want to "saddle someone else with something like that."
The motion passed, 5:1, with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
WORK SESSION - Land Use Plan Principles, Standards and Designations
The Commission discussed the first 9 pages of the plan and made the following
suggested changes:
Page 1
... the Plan proposes a future land use design that can alter the physical character as it
exists today....
Mr. Nitchmann questioned why this was underlined. He felt this could be interpreted to
SWW mean "whatever we are going to have in the future, these are going to be the design
soy
05
In
7-11-95 10
guidelines and rules." He said he was concerned about this phrase because "it implies
some type of action." He said he viewed this document as "a set of guiding principles"
for what should be done, and not as a design document.
Ms. Huckle suggested it should be explained that the underlined sentence refers to the
growth areas. She did not want it to imply that the physical character of the rural areas
would be changed as a result of this Plan. She suggested the addition of the words "of
the Growth Area" after the word character.
Ms. Imhoff said she liked the intent of the statement, i.e. "to put people on notice that
things can change."
Page 2
Serve Growth Areas, including Villages, with public sewer and water.
Ms. Huckle objected to this statement which she felt indicated an intent to extend water
and sewer into villages. She suggesting changing it to: "Villages shall be limited to
areas with public water and sewer."
Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Nitchmann agreed.
(No other comment was offered by other Commissioners.)
... continue to see the Rural Areas as a conservation area for the County.
Ms. Imhoff said she did not see the Rural Areas as a conservation zone, rather she
viewed them as forestry, active agriculture, watershed replenishment area. We don't
want to view the rural areas as just a holding zone for future development." She did
not offer alternative language but suggested staff come up with "a couple of words
which would describe what the rural areas are."
Mr. Nitchmann suggested a period after the words Growth Areas in the first bullet.
(No other comment was offered by other Commissioners.)
Discourage "stripping" roads with development.
Mr. Nitchmann asked for a definition of this statement. He said he could agree with
some "no stripping" concepts, but there may be instances where it makes sense, e.g.
�q
7-11-95
11
where commercial development already exists on one side of the road, it would be
sensible to allow it on the opposite side of the road.
Ms. Imhoff suggested using the language that the Commission had decided upon in it's
adopted Guiding Principles. She recalled that there had been a lot of discussion on this
topic and the Commission had agreed that "linear development" was not desirable.
Provide a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support
and enhance the Growth Areas.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern that this could be interpreted as "committing
someone down the road to an expenditure of funds unknown at this time." He felt
provide was too definitive.
Ms. Huckle suggested changing provide to plan for. Mr. Nitchmann agreed.
Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under -used areas
within the designated Growth Areas.
Mr. Nitchmann wondered if what the County can do to encourage infill development
could be better defined. (It was pointed out that this is addressed later in the
document.)
Avoid "Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what this means, in relation to this Plan.
(It was explained that the Commission had already adopted this statement as one of its
Guiding Principles.)
Ms. Imhoff was in favor of the statement remaining.
Page 3
No. 2 - Ms. Huckle asked if service roads are defined anywhere. She suggested that
there should be a requirement for access between developments.
No. 3 - Ms. Imhoff strongly supported this statement.
No. 8 - Ms. Imhoff wondered if there should be a statement related to lighting impact on
the observatories. She noted that Fan Mt. is of national significance. Ms. Huckle
suggested that staff contact representatives of the Observatory to discuss what type of
lighting is best. Mr. Nitchmann asked that the County not lose site of the fact that the
310
In
7-11-95
12
Observatory was built many years ago, before the growth patterns which exist today.
Mr. Nitchmann did not want to see this issue extended to the point where a private
property owner would have to meet zoning requirements before lighting his back yard.
Page 4
No 1 - Ms. Huckle was concerned about the second sentence --Limited supporting
commercial uses appropriate to the rural areas should be included in the rural areas
zoning provisions. She asked what commercial uses are appropriate to the rural area.
(Mr. Benish listed examples such as veterinarians and country stores.) Ms. Imhoff
wondered if this statement belonged here or if it should be included in the Rural Areas
section. (Ms. Huckle agreed.) She did not want the possibility of a commercial center at
every crossroads in the County to resurface. Ms. Imhoff thought it would be helpful to
cite some examples in the sentence. Mr. Benish said the sentence could be taken out if
that was the Commission's desire. Ms. Vaughan said she favored the sentence
remaining in this location because, as had been discussed at a previous meeting, it is
desirable to have these items where they can be easily located in the Plan. Ms. Imhoff
thought the problem with Ms. Vaughan's idea is that there will be none of these areas
actually on the Land Use Map. Mr. Benish said staff had intended that this mean that
"only limited types of commercial uses are permitted in the rural areas." He said if it is
not understood to be a "qualifying statement," then it is probably best to remove it.
No. 2 - Mr. Nitchmann asked how the statement areas designated for commercial
development on the Land Use Plan map should not be less than three acres had been
arrived at. Mr. Benish explained that "3 acres is at the point where there is enough
flexibility for multiple uses and multiple sites. Mr. Nitchmann felt 3 acres was a very
small number. Ms. Imhoff felt the intent of this standard was to encourage the co -
location of small commercial uses (convenience stores, gas stations, etc.) so that joint
entrances could be used. Mr. Benish was uncertain why 3 acres is recommended as a
minimum for commercial, and 5 acres for industrial, but he thought it was related to
"given the variety of commercial uses, the sizes and various requirements, at that level
there begins to be enough potential multiple activities that a planned development
approach should be encouraged." Industrial uses take more acreage and it was
probably increased by 2 acres before there is the potential for multiple users on the site.
Ms. Imhoff wondered how this would ultimately be used.
No. 3 - Mr. Nitchmann wondered how expensive a traffic analysis is.
No. 4 (last sentence) - ...operational aspects or the potential objectionable aspects
should be adequately addressed at rezoning. - Ms. Huckle suggested that the words
or the should be changed to and any. (There were no objections to this suggestion.)
saw Page 5
M
7-11-95 13
No. 9 - Industrial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Communities
and the Urban Area. - Ms. Imhoff felt this statement should be in the Rural Areas
section. She suggested that there should also be examples of those types of uses.
Ms. Huckle agreed.
Appropriate agricultural and forestal industrial uses convenient to the uses they
support should be included in the rural areas zoning provisions. Mr. Nitchmann
supported the use of the word should as proposed (rather than "shall.") He wanted
this to be a 'friendly" statement. Ms. Imhoff added: "But we want it to be clear
between urban and rural."
No. 4 - ...Methods to mitigate objectionable aspects should be addressed at time of
rezoning. - Ms. Huckle asked what types of things would be mitigated. (Mr. Benish
gave as examples noise, odor, dust, etc.) Ms. Huckle asked: "if a use produces
those things, do we want them at all? Should we encourage something that is going
to require mitigation?" Mr. Blue pointed out that almost any industrial use will require
some mitigation. Ms. Imhoff suggested that examples of objectional aspects could be
listed. Ms. Imhoff wondered if Ms. Huckle's concern could be addressed through a
statement (somewhere) saying that "We do have some constraints on the kind of
industry we can absorb in this area. We want to put people on notice that we don't
have a lot of water and we are in a Clean Air area." Mr. Blue agreed that there are
constraints which cannot be mitigated, such as inadequate water supply, but he felt it
would be wrong not to acknowledge that there are some factors which, through proper
procedures, can be mitigated. Though Ms. Huckle directed staff to develop some
language which would "make everyone happy," Mr. Benish said that would not be
possible. Mr. Jenkins felt all the statement says is that the County is going to look at
any objectionable aspects of a potential industry. He said it does not say that "we
don't want anybody to come knocking on our door if they are going to do something
we don't like. It's not meant to say that." Ms. Imhoff felt Ms. Huckle was saying the
County does not want any industry that has objectionable aspects. Mr. Blue said:
"That's a difference in philosophy and there is not much we can do to resolve it except
when we come to a vote."
(Mr. Benish reminded the Commission that staff had been directed to make this a
"clear and simple" document. He pointed out that the Economic Development Policy
does identify the types of industries that the County is interested in.)
Ms. Imhoff suggested that the Natural Resource section could emphasize the desire to
retain our air and water quality. References could then be made back to industrial,
residential and commercial standards.
No. 6 - Ms. Imhoff felt that 50 acres seemed like a lot of land. (Mr.
Benish thought this was an error. He thought it should have been 5 rather than 50.)
31Z
7-11-95
Page 6
14
(The first sentence on the page, which is continued from the previous page)
...encourage the provision of various housing types and provide for affordable housing.
- Mr. Nitchmann suggested the words provide for should be changed to encourage.
(There were no objections.) Ms. Imhoff asked if affordable housing was defined
anywhere in the document. Mr. Benish said that though it is a vague statement, it is in
the Housing Section of the Plan. He said the same statement could be added here.
(Second Paragraph) It is intended that if conflict occurs between these strategies and
other residential land use strateaies/standards housing affordability should prevail. -
Ms. Imhoff felt this sentence "preempts" the Commission's role in the housing element
of the Comprehensive Plan. She thought the Housing Committee was creating a
document which would then be incorporated as an element of the Comprehensive
Plan. (Mr. Benish said he should have included, in parenthesis (to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission). He said: "That would be in place presuming that you have
reviewed the Housing recommendations and that they are in place in another chapter of
the Plan." Ms. Imhoff said also that she felt the underlined sentence is setting the
Commission up for a conflict that is unnecessary. She felt that under certain
circumstances, there may be other factors (e.g. special open space, historic structures,
high traffic concerns) which should prevail above housing affordability. She did not
V400' think housing affordability, in every case, will be the final determinant. Mr. Nitchmann
agreed. Ms. Huckle said she also strongly objected to the underlined sentence.
It was agreed the sentence would be removed.
(First paragraph under Residential Densities, last sentence) - Where demonstrated by
economic or other considerations that density in excess of that recommended by the
Plan is warranted to accommodate an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable
density increase should be provided. - Ms. Huckle asked: "Are we really helping people
if we have a large concentration of low cost housing? Would we create more problems
than we solve? I don't feel people should be treated like second-class citizens just
because they are needy." Ms. Imhoff responded: "For me, affordable housing does not
equate to ghettoization of housing. A lot has to do with how it gets designed and there
is where we can make sure we have high quality projects in this county." Mr. Blue said
the whole thrust of the land use program is "that we want to increase densities in
growth areas so that we will protect the rural areas." Ms. Huckle felt this statement
says that "even more than" what has already been stated about increased densities
should be encouraged. Ms. Imhoff felt Ms. Huckle's concern could be addressed by
some additional language which would refer to how this will be implemented through
the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Huckle was in favor of a requirement that a certain
percentage of each development meet the definition of affordable housing. She said
some other localities are using this approach. Ms. Imhoff suggested the addition of a
_�/3
Em
7-11-95
15
paragraph which says "the best way to get a mix of units is to have the mix within the
projects themselves."
No. 2 (bottom of page) - Mr. Benish agreed the emphasis was to establish some
design and not just to get as many lots as possible out of the project. It was agreed the
term rectilinear layout would be deleted.
[illustrations of various densities] - Ms. Imhoff felt it would work better to have actual
photographs of various developments.
Page 7
No. 4 - Mr. Nitchmann wondered if the requirements for recreational facilities need to be
reviewed.
Page 9
(Next -to -last bullet on page) Ms. Huckle said she favored changes to commercial
parking requirements and impediments to alternative development designs. Ms. Imhoff
said her concern with commercial parking requirements is that they often are not
building by the County's requirements, but rather by some national requirements of their
company. She said they are often providing parking for the busiest shopping day of the
year. Mr. Benish called attention to the wording in No. 6 on page 3, under General
Land Use Standards, which addresses Ms. Imhoff concern. He offered to include that
same wording here. Ms. Imhoff was agreeable to that suggestion. Ms. Imhoff asked if
impediments to alternative development designs have been identified. Mr. Benish said
he intended that this be an Action item in the Comprehensive Plan, "to be done in the
future."
(Last bullet on page) Ms. Imhoff said she was not certain that she would be
comfortable with making critical slopes waivers an administrative process. She felt
this language should be "softer." Mr. Blue said he definitely felt critical slopes waivers
should be a staff process because it is staff who has the technical expertise. Ms.
Imhoff said she felt the issue was often one of scale. Ms. Huckle said she felt it should
be illegal to create critical slopes. She did not feel critical slopes waivers should be an
administrative process. Ms. Huckle wondered if flexibility in design would decrease the
need to develop on critical slopes. Mr. Nitchmann suggested there might be a process
where a Commissioner could call up a plan which required a critical slope waiver if
there are concerns. To address Commission concerns, Mr. Benish suggested the
following substitute language: "Utilize the Open Space Plan Composite Maps to guide
waiver provisions and to establish some standards for evaluating those waiver
requests." He felt this might be a first step in moving to an administrative process.
.3 /Y
7-11-95
16
The Commission ended its discussion at the end of page 9. Discussion was to be
continued at a 5:15 work session on Tuesday, July 18.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders' Association, asked for
clarification on the Commission's position on Villages. It was explained the Commission
is contemplating that the designation be removed from Earlysville and North Garden,
but remain for Rivanna. He also asked if it was correct that the total acreage to be
recommended for growth area expansion would not be finalized until after the county-
wide public meetings to be held in the fall. Mr. Blue responded affirmatively.
Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, was opposed to the change of the words plan for to
provide for. He felt that the County had to be responsible for the infrastructure which
will accompany infill development and density increases. He strongly favored a
requirement that there be connections between communities. He felt No. 5, under
Commercial Land Standards, was very important. He felt this was more important than
Highway Commercial Development. He favored the concept of requiring that a portion
of all new development include a percentage of affordable housing. He felt it was very
important to maintain the boundaries of the growth areas.
Mr. Steve Runkle offered the following comments:
--Page 2 - He agreed that "stripping" was an undefined term.
--Page 3, No. 2 - He suggested the addition of the following: "...by limiting
access points, to the major roads, providing side street access (etc.)...
--Page 4, last sentence of No. 2 - He felt this was confusing. He assumed it
meant that no commercially designated area will be shown on the Land Use Map
unless it is at least 3 acres. He did not want it to be interpreted as meaning there could
be no commercial use which is less than 3 acres.
--Page 4, No. 3 - He felt "use is at least as important a size" as it relates to traffic
generation.
--No. 1 on both pages 4 and 5 - He felt it would be confusing to read this without
some reference to what will be covered in the Rural Areas section.
--He felt strongly that the County needs to define affordable housing. He said
this could have a lot of ramifications as to the use of the terms should or will. He said
that no matter how it is defined, it will be impossible to produce unless some provision
for public infrastructure is provided. He suggested the inclusion in the Comp Plan of
language such as: A goal is to have design and regulatory requirements that meet the
public safety and welfare needs, but also attempt to provide housing for people at the
median income, whereby they don't have to spend more than 30% of the household
income on housing."
--Page 7, No. 4 - He said if infill development is to be genuinely encouraged,
then recreational requirements need to be reviewed.
7-11-95 17
''sir..
--Page 9 - He agreed the meaning of the term impediments to alternate
development was unclear.
--On the issue of parking, he suggested that those users who want excessive
parking should be required to mitigate the negative impact caused by the additional
amount of impervious surface and the resulting impact on water quality.
The work session ended at 9:50 p.m.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Commission requested that staff send a letter of thanks to Tom Leback, and a
letter of welcome to Pete Anderson.
In anticipation of the request for a Mobile Home Park to be heard on July 18, Ms. Imhoff
asked that staff be prepared to explain how the Airport Impact Overlay Area has
changed since the previous request. Mr. Blue pointed out that this item will be before
the Commission again because the first permit expired. He did not think staffs position
has changed and he hoped that "we will not have to re -fight all those battles." Ms.
Huckle pointed out that there is a new Board and a new Planning Commission since the
' first approval.
Mr. Davis introduced Mr. Greg Campner, the County's newly hired Assistant County
Attorney.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
M
cm
S /&