HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 01 1994 PC Minutes2-1-94
FEBRUARY 1, 1994
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, February 1, 1994, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Va. Those members present were: Ms.
Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann;
Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Mr. Bruce Dotson.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr.
JuanDiego Wade, Transportation Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
(SUB-93-173) Weston Final Plat - Proposal to locate 10 lots
averaging 0.548 acres Zoned R-2 Residential to be served by a new
public road. Property, described as Tax Map 56A(1), Section 3
Parcel 14 is located on the south side of Route 789 (White Hall
Road) approximately 0.3 miles north of Route 1202 (St. George
Avenue). This property is located in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is not located in a designated growth area
(RA3) .
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff was recommending
approval subject to conditions.
In answer to Ms. Huckle's request, Ms. Hipski described the route
of the draingage from the site ("from the spring towards Crozet
Elementary School").
Regarding drainage, Mr. Blue asked: "Isn't it fair to say that
the subdivision drainage will not aggrevate the problem and is
more likely alleviate it? It will certainly help alleviate the
problem. In other words, the proposed subdivision is not going
to make that drainage situation worse; if it does anything, it
will make it better." Ms. Hipski agreed.
Ms. Imhoff asked if staff had any knowledge of old septic tanks
on the site. Ms. Hipski replied that after extensive research,
staff could find no record of either old septic tanks or mobile
homes.
In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Ms. Hipski confirmed that
Lots 6 and 7 have existing dwellings on them.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Buck. He addressed
the septic tank question and explained that the property was
owned by Douglas Dabney since 1965 and Mr. Dabney has provided a
16
2-1-94 2
statement certifying that there were no mobile homes on the
property, at least as far back as his ownership. Regarding the
location of the detention basin, he explained: "The engineer has
worked with the staff to design a plan for that ... but basically
that would be on the lots running along near the stream so that
the water, as it comes down the grade would be able to be
collected there, be absorbed and go into the stream .... They are
looking at ways to modify it to make it fit in better with the
landscaping --use more natural contours as opposed to creating a
major structure."
The Chair invited public comment.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed
the Commission. Though he acknowledged that this was a by -right
proposal, he expressed opposition because the property is located
in the Beaver Creek Watershed which supplies drinking water for
all of Crozet. He suggested: "In the coming general revision of
the Comprehensive Plan there could be some general revision of
the Zoning Ordinance... so that we are not faced with the
situation that we are here tonight where it is difficult to
prevent the wrong development from occurring."
Mr. Blue pointed out that this piece of land has been planned for
subdivision for almost 30 years and has primarily been waiting
for public sewer. He concluded: "I agree we should discourage
development close to a watershed area where it is possible, but
it seems to me it would be creating an undue hardship to deny
this with the hope of trying to change the zoning during the
Comprehensive Plan revision."
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to Mr. Patterson's comments, Ms. Imhoff stated: "I do
think he brought up a good point, that when we do the Comp Plan
update it is really an opportunity to look closely at some of the
growth areas.... 11
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Weston Final Plat be approved,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall
it be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road
and drainage plans, including allowance for access from Parcel 9
on Weston Lane;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage
plans;
c. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans;
2-1-94 3
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a Runoff Control
Permit;
e. Recordation of a County Standard SWM/BMP Maintenance
Agreement;
f. Department of Engineering approval of an Erosion Control
Plan;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final
water and sewer plans and calculations.
2. Administrative approval of final plat.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
(SDP-93-084) - Rio Hill Apartments Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to locate 139 apartment units in five buildings, a
welcome center and one pool supported by 296 parking spaces on
9.53 acres zoned R-15, Residential. Property, described as Tax
Map 61, Parcel 124E, (a portion) is located on the north side of
East Rio Road, north of the Putt Putt/Bonanza complex. Access
shall be through (the existing access road) Putt Putt Lane
serving Bonanza and Putt Putt. This site is located in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District and is recommended for high
density (11-34 du/acres) in Urban Neighborhood 2.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He stated that the
proposal could have been approved administratively except for the
necessity for modifications of the following sections:
(1) Section 4.2.3.2 to allow the pool to be located in an
area of critical slopes; and
(2) Section 5.1.6 to allow the pool to be less than 75 feet
from an adjacent property.
Staff was recommending approval of the modifications.
The staff report, a copy of which is filed with these minutes,
explained staff's reasons for their recommendation. Staff was
recommending one additional condition in addition to the standard
conditions of approval: Staff approval of a landscape plan to
include fencing and screening around the pool facility.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that the fencing and screening around the
pool would be part of the landscape bond.
Mr. Blue expressed the understanding that the critical slope
ordinance was intended to protect natural critical slopes. He
guessed that over half of requests received are related to
artificially created slopes. He suggested: "The applicant has
one more hoop to jump through and it seems to me that's something
we might consider when we are doing changes, that perhaps when
we're talking about protection of critical slopes and protection
of artificial, engineered slopes, we are straining it. It
/9
2-1-94 4
doesn't make sense to me; at least you ought to be able to handle
it administratively."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Blue to explain the difference She stated
engineers have told her there is no difference.
Mr. Blue felt there was a considerable difference. He explained:
"The intent of the critical slope protection was to protect the
mountains, the ravines, and the streams, etc."
Ms. Imhoff did not agree that critical slopes protection was just
for aesthetic and natural areas. She recalled that some of the
regulations had been the result of urban construction on Rt. 29
that did not want to have "sensitive slope treatment behind it
and had a lot of debris, over the years, falling off of the slope
cut." She felt there were some construction and aesthetic
concerns within the urbanized area.
Mr. Blue replied: "That is something staff is certainly quite
competent to handle. I think if it is a philosophical question
of protection of the critical slopes when we're talking about
changing a stream valley or a mountain top, then that is a
philosophical or policy question that is properly referred to the
Commission, but what you're talking about is something staff is
certainly more competent to handle than we are."
Ms. Imhoff: "I think sometimes it depends on whose property is
effected. Some property owners and members of the community
would very much like to know when these things are being
discussed. I think that's a broader discussion than what is here
tonight."
Ms. Imhoff stated that though she was "sympathetic" to the
proposed location for the pool and keeping all the recreation
together, she was "having a hard time hanging (her) hat" on which
of the three reasons staff had used as the basis for their
recommendation for approval on the critical slope modification.
(She referred to the three reasons stated in 4.2.5.2.)
Mr. Fritz explained that the authority to grant the modifications
were under two different parts of the Ordinance: Critical slopes
under 4.2.5.2; Setback for the pool under 5.1. He quoted from
Section 5.1 which addresses the setback. He stated that,
historically, staff has recommended approval if the request meets
4.2.5.2(a): "Strict application of the requirements of section
4.2 would not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise
serve the public interest or that alternatives proposed by the
developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least
an equivalent degree;...."
/17
2-1-94
5
Mr. Keeler added that staff asks applicants and the County
engineering staff to address specifically "that long paragraph at
the beginning of critical slopes that sets out the purpose of
critical slopes." (He called attention to attachments C & D of
the staff report.) If that analyses turns up negative, i.e. "it
won't cause accelerated soil erosion, etc.," then, on its face
the critical slopes provisions, in staff's opinion, are
satisfied.
Mr. Nitchmann inquired about the zoning status on adjacent
property. Mr. Fritz reported that adjacent property is zoned R-
15 and the residue is also zoned R-15; to the north and east it
is a lower density residential. The property to the east is
developed.
Mr. Blue asked if the critical slopes on the R-15 property,
(which staff said would likely preclude development,) were also
artificial. Mr. Fritz replied affirmatively.
Ms. Huckle asked if the applicant was proposing to "bulldoze the
site and level it off." Mr. Fritz replied that grading is
proposed, but the site is relatively flat with the exception of
the back part.
In response to Ms. Huckie's question, Mr. Fritz explained that
the shape of the property had been determined by the ridge line.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Marilyn Gale. She stated
the applicant concurs with the conditions proposed by staff. In
answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question about buildout schedule, she
explained that "bascially they will all be built consecutively
and (she) suspected that they would open the whole development at
one time." She called attention to the phase lines on the plan.
She confirmed that recreation areas will be in place before the
buildings are rented. (Mr. Fritz added: "The Ordinance also
contains specific language that requires the improvements to be
in place upon a certain percentage of the units being
completed.") Regarding grading, she stated the site will not be
"leveled" and some of the buildings will be "stepped up and down"
in order to accommodate the natural slope. In response to Mr.
Dotson 's question as to whether or not comments have been
received from the adjacent owner in regards to the pool location,
Ms. Gale responded: "We have not heard any comment from them
ourselves and I don't believe staff has either." She stated the
applicant has not sought comment from the adjacent property
owner. She pointed out that the property is similarly zoned R-15
and the assumption is that they will also be putting a like use
on the property. (Mr. Fritz explained that he had had contact
with the residential property owners to the east, but he had
received no written or oral opposition to the request.)
10
2-1-94 b
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the request for modifications of
Sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.5 be granted and that the Rio Hill
Apartments Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the
standard conditions of approval and the following additional
condition:
(a) Staff approval of a landscape plan to include
fencing and screening around the pool facility.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Imhoff noted that her reason for supporting the request
"would be recognizing that it is a man-made slope; I think I
would have some difference of opinion if it was in a different
area." She suggested that when staff is reviewing the
Supplementary Regulations, it would be helpful to have some
different setbacks for recreation facilities in existing
residential developments.
Mr. Dotson stated: "On one hand I would like to support having
as much residential density in the built up area as possible and
in that sense I think the pool makes the complex all the more
attractive and more livable.... On the other hand, there are a
couple of things which bother me. One is that, in some sense we
could call this a self-imposed hardship because of the shape the
parcel was given, virtually as we speak. It didn't have to be
that way. It bothers me to be granting a waiver on a self-
imposed situation. Secondly, since we haven't heard anything
from adjacent owners, I am not sure how I can conclude that the
public purpose is being met in the sense that I assume that it's
noise, view, as well as erosion, particularly when talking about
having a pool that close to the property line. I'd feel much
better if we had heard from the adjacent owner who said that 'it
causes me no problem --with the topography I wouldn't be
developing right up against it,' then I'd have no concerns. But
I do have those concerns."
Ms. Huckle stated: "I have a lot of trouble with waivers like
this. If there is a reason for them to be in the Ordinance, it
seems to me that they shouldn't be waived so easily."
Mr. Blue stated: "I certainly think its a good point about
moving the pool --it was a self-imposed hardship, and I agree with
that. But I think in this particular case the adjacent property
owner is going to be asking for somewhat near the same thing, so
�Q1
2-1-94
7
I am not too concerned. I reiterate I think that the waiver of
the critical slopes on this type thing is something I think staff
is competent to handle. I realize under the present Ordinance
they can't do that without our concurrence."
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Dotson
and Huckle casting the dissenting votes.
-------------------------------------------
WORK SESSION
Growth Area Expansion - Mr. Benish presented the staff report.
Staff was asking the Commission for direction on how to proceed
on four topics --three individual requests for expansion of the
Hollymead Growth Area and on a comprehensive evaluation of Growth
Area expansion in general, i.e. whether or not to undertake
studies of these topics at this time, or to delay review and
include them with the overall review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff's recommendations on the four questions were as follows:
--That the overall issue of Growth Area expansion be
undertaken during the full review of the Comp Plan;
--University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) - That the
application be reviewed immediately and scheduled for public
hearing for inclusion in the Hollymead Community Growth Area;
--Donald Brown/Terry S aid - That the application be
reviewed in conjunction with the full review of the Comp Plan;
(NOTE: Staff later explained that the Board has already taken
an action on this request. Staff had not been aware of this at
the time the staff report was written. Staff noted, however,
that the "general area" is one which will want to be taken into
consideration in the context of the full Comp Plan review.)
--Kessler Group - That the application be reviewed
independently for inclusion in the Hollymead Community Growth
Area, upon resolution of the Meadow Creek parkway.
Staff pointed out that none of the applicants have actually
requested that their applications be reactivated at the present
time. Both the UREF and Kessler applications have been pending
for some time as specific requests. In order to treat all those
applications pending fairly, staff initiated this evaluation.
(The proposals were previously deferred.) Those requests would
be reactivated, and eventually scheduled for public hearing, if
the Commission so directs. They would then go on to the Board
with the Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Cilimberg explained further that any general study of Growth
Area expansion would also go through the public hearing process
and on to the Board, but "that can happen early, in the next
couple of months, or can be taken up during the Comprehensive
Plan review and be forwarded to the Board as part of the entire
Plan recommendations." He pointed out that, in either case, the
aA
2-1-94
0
Commission will be taking the initial actions, based on its
public hearing.
Both UREF and the Kessler Group were represented at the meeting.
Mr. Tim Rose and Mr. Bob McKee represented UREF. They expressed
the hope that the Commission would decide to recommend that the
review of their proposal proceed without further delay. They
explained that they have a number of firms interested in locating
in the research park and those prospective businesses may be lost
if there are further delays. They explained the planning,
economic and marketing advantages of being able to plan the
development of both the northern and southern parts of the
property concurrently. (Mr. McKee clarified that 1/2 the
property --the southern section ---has been zoned PDIP for 15
years.) He also stated that approval of road plans for the entire
property, both northern and southern sections, will be received
within the next week. (The Planning Commission and VDOT have
already approved the road plans.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board has taken action on three
Comprehensive Plan Amendments in the same general area as the
UREF property since UREF's original submittal, even though staff
had recommended against those requests. This has placed staff in
an "awkward position of trying to advise applicants where there
have been independent actions taken that were not along the same
lines as the original action regarding growth area expansion."
Mr. Nitchmann asked the UREF representatives if they felt
delaying the request longer would be detrimental to the economic
well-being of the County because of the resulting delay in
additional jobs. Mr. Rose responded: "I absolutely do."
Noting that UREF has already completed a very extensive study of
the development of the property, Mr. Nitchmann asked if the
applicant had made any studies in the savings that would be
realized by development of both sections of the property at the
same time. Mr. McKee replied that there would certainly be
savings in doing it all at once, but he was unable to state the
actual percentage of savings.
Ms. Imhoff asked if UREF had received comment from neighborhing
property owners and she also expressed an interest in knowing if
there are other similarly situated properties that might be
interested in comprehensive plan amendments. Mr. McKee responded
that contact was made with property owners when the proposal was
first presented, but because of the nature of tonight's meeting
(i.e. a work session), no recent contact has been attempted. Mr.
McKee also pointed out that a very extensive study of existing
industrially zoned property was included with the original
proposal (a copy of which is still on file in the Planning
Department). In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question regarding
C�.3
2-1-94 9
whether there are advantages to prospective businesses in
locating in the northern part of the part, Mr. Rose replied that
the northern section has larger lots which can accommodate larger
firms. Mr. McKee added that the northern section sites are "a
little nicer from a corporate standpoint." Mr. Rose added that
the northern section will also be easier to develop. Mr. McKee
also confirmed that the infrastructure that the developer will be
putting in place will not be a cost burden to the County.
Mr. Steve Runkle represented the Kessler Group. He described the
history of the property in question. He called attention to what
he felt were significant issues:
--The lack of the ability to develop this property will
result in more growth in the rural areas since the growth will
have to be absorbed somewhere else.
--The site will be served by its own internal road system.
--The property is not impacted by the "current proposed
route" (turning west and intersecting 29) for the Meadow Creek
Parkway does. not come through this site. If the Parkway "turns
west and intersects with 29," the developer is currently building
a "connector road."
Regarding staff's recommendation to tie the review of the Kessler
Group proposal to the resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway,
Mr. Blue pointed out to Mr. Runkle that the Comprehensive Plan
Review would likely be completed as quickly as the Parkway will
be resolved. Mr. Runkle expressed the hope that the proposal
could be reviewed before the resolution of the Parkway (unless
the Parkway can be resolved in the next few months).
The Chair invited public comment. None was offered.
Additional significant Commission comments were as follows:
BLUE:
He suggested the Commission's recommendation on the Meadow Creek
Parkway might be different if it were discussed by the present
Commission. (Staff pointed out that the Kessler request was like
the previously heard South Fork Land Trust proposal in terms of
the Meadow Creek Parkway question, but the UREF proposal is not
effected by the Parkway.)
Regarding the tour issues on which staff was seeking Commission
direction (as stated previously), Mr. Blue interpreted that of
the four, the UREF was the most critical since the other three
were "automatically delayed." He supported staff's
recommendations on all four issues.
IMHOFF:
2-1-94 10
She stated she was reluctant to consider any of the proposals
just prior to the commencement of a full Comprehensive Plan
review. She stated: "I don't think it would serve the citizens
well to be doing this piecemeal just as we are beginning to look
at the whole big picture." She pointed out however, that even if
the Commission should decide tonight to defer all the topics
until the the Comp Plan review, the Board could still say: "No,
we think there are few projects that you should look at on a
faster timetable."
HUCKLE:
She agreed with Ms. Imhoff. She added: "Maybe we could expedite
the Comp Plan review if we were to start some of these things now
so we won't be so jammed up later on. I really think we need
more information than we have. ... I would like to see us wait
and put them all in the Comp Plan Review." She expressed a
concern about the lack of a parallel road for Rt. 29. She also
pointed out that studies are just getting underway to determine
the capacity of the Reservoir. She felt both these issues are
vital to this type of development. (Mr. McKee and staff later
confirmed that the Albemarle County Service Authority has
addressed the issue of sewer and has determined there to be
capacity for this development at the Camelot Plant. Mr. Benish
added that "the existing designated growth area will need to be
supplemented anyhow, so the expansion --either to Towers that was
just approved or to UREF--won't have any significantly different
impact to what is already going to have to be done to provide
adequate service to the existing growth area.") She felt the
lack of answers to the traffic and water questions would effect
the marketing of the property.
DOTSON:
He recalled that it was the UREF proposal which "aimost
singlehandedly" gave rise to the Fiscal Impact study. (Mr.
Cilimberg confirmed "it was a major consideration.") He felt it
was "illogical" to move ahead with the review of the proposal at
this time since the completion of the Fiscal Impact Study was
near completion (approximately within 3-6 months).
NITCHMANN:
He pointed out that given the time it will take for any of these
topics to go through the work session and public approval
process, both by the Commission and the Board, the Fiscal Impact
Model is likely to be in place. He declared that, in his
opinion, the Model is not a "is this good for the community or
not good for the community" type of document; rather it's a
"planning and economic tool." He felt the two would "dovetail
nicely." He felt delay of review of the UREF proposal "would be
very detrimental to the economic well being of the community at
0,5
2-1-94 11
this time." He pointed out that the applicant has already put a
substantial amount of time and study into the proposal and "it is
a logical extension of that growth area." He added: "I think
it's important right now that we have an entity within this
community that is willing to put forth the time and funds into
extending the economic vitality of the community, but they need
our help and the help we can give them is to give them a whole
pie to work with." In conclusion, it was his recommendation that
review of the UREF proposal move forward but that rview of the
entire growth area could wait. He noted that the Spaid/Brown
property was "a given." Regarding the Kessler property, he
stated: "I think we all agree it is going to be part of that
neighborhood, it's just a question of when." He noted that with
the anticipated economic growth which the new State
administration will bring, "it would seem advantageous for us to
have homes or areas designated for them to live in that are close
to the potential areas of employment." He stated he would be in
favor of reviewing the Kessler and UREF proposals concurrently
were it not for the Meadow Creek Parkway issue. (In response to
Mr. Nitchmann's comments, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that if it is
the Commission's desire, staff will bring the Kessler request
back as soon as the Meadow Creek Parkway issue is resolved "in
whatever way". "If it's 60 days from now, it's 60 days and we
would bring it back to you.")
Ms. Imhoff prefaced a motion by explaining: "I am very
sympathetic to these amendments and I think it is just the kind
of discussion we'd like to see within the context of the whole
community. We've made a commitment to the entire community that
we are going to do this Comp Plan update and I am also very
concerned about equity to other landowners who may, themselves,
want 240 acres of PDIP out there."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that all four issues be taken up with
the entire Comp Plan discussion.
She also expressed the hope that the Comp Plan review could begin
more quickly.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann addressed Ms. Imhoff's comments and stated that
were it not for the fact that the UREF proposal has had a great
deal of work done on it already, he might agree with her
position. He felt the Commission should "take a little bite out
of" the Comp Plan review whenever an opportunity "which makes
sense" presents itself. He felt consideration of the UREF
proposal "makes sense" because "if there is an opportunity to
bring jobs to this community, then I do not want to be the one
that says I delayed something long enough to prevent the
2-1-94 12
opportunity for someone in this community to seek better
employment than what they have because we wanted to look at the
total picture."
Mr. Dotson stated that though both UREF and the Kessler
representatives had presented arguments that made him want to
proceed, "logically," he felt it was premature. In answer to Mr.
Nitchmann's question as to why he felt it was premature, he
explained: "I think the implications of that amount of
industrial lands are potentially far reaching. I think we need
to think about it. I'd like some information about the kinds of
jobs we need in the community. I'd like to have a chance to look
into that question. I'd like to see information from VEC or
wherever we can get that kind of information so that if we can
kind of agree on what we're looking for in the way of jobs, then
we can be very entrepreneurial as a County and work with the
University to go after those. Right now I feel like it's
unknown. In the meantime, there is an adequate supply of land
available." He noted that staff had been very professional in
bringing up an unresolved issue, but in a sense, "it is almost a
housekeeping matter that has brought it before us at this point
in time."
Mr. Nitchmann disagreed about the availability of industrial
land. He indicated that his experience has shown that businesses
looking for industrial land "don't feel that way." He stated:
"I would hate to see an opportunity like this go by us because we
want to tread softly." He estimated that getting the type of
information suggested by Mr. Dotson would be a six to eight month
process. He pointed out that the people who really need the jobs
"are not the people who are articulate enough to come stand in
front of this podium and tell us that, (rather) it will be the
special interest groups that will stand up here and tell us all
the facts that we need to know." He concluded: "I can't support
this (motion) and I've said enough."
For clarification, Ms. Imhoff clarified that her motion was that
all four issues be delayed until the Comp Plan review "unless
directed otherwise by the Board of Supervisors."
The motion failed due to a tie vote. Commissioners Imhoff,
Dotson and Huckle voted for the motion and Commissioners
Nitchmann, Blue and Jenkins voted against.
Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that proceeding with the UREF
proposal would "not be doing anything so drastic that it couldn't
be stopped because most of us realize that ultimately something
like that is going to happen up there and if we go ahead and
study this thing, we are starting the train down the track but it
is not unstoppable. ... I think we would really be remiss if we
didn't give them the opportunity to get this train started and if
'27
2-1-94
13
(negative) information comes later related to water or fiscal
impact, then we can stop it."
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the UREF proposal be studied as
recommended by staff.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Ms. Imhoff suggested what she termed a "possible amendment to
that motion," i.e. "rather than saying, tonight, 'yes we're going
to go forward, study it, hold it to public hearing,' would it be
possible to come back next week and just talk about UREF when we
have a full Commission?"
Mr. Blue was not amenable to Ms. Imhoff's suggestion.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern that Ms. Imhoff's suggestion
could set a precedent.
Mr. Dotson asked if review of the UREF proposal could be "folded
in" with the Comp Plan work sessions rather than waiting until
the Plan decision is made and then review it.
Mr. Cilimberg felt that would depend on the Comp Plan review
schedule and on whether or not the information that UREF has
compiled thus far is adequate or if additional information will
be required by the Commission.
Mr. Blue guessed that a review probably could not take place
until the Comp Plan review. However, he felt a positive
recommendation to review the proposal would "send a signal to the
UREF people that we are at least moving that way." (Mr. Benish
felt the review could take place faster since most of the work
has already been done. All that would have to be done is re-
packaging and updating to 1994 perspective.)
The previously stated motion to proceed with the UREF proposal
failed due to a tie vote. Commissioners Jenkins, Blue and
Nitchmann voted in favor; Commissioners Imhoff, Dotson and Huckle
voted against.
Mr. Blue noted: "I think this sends a message to UREF, the
Kessler Group, and all those other people, that these projects,
worthy as they may seem to them, better have a lot of homework
done and a lot of preparation because I feel that this is an
indication of things to come."
Ms. Imhoff addressed Mr. Blue's comments: "I think the message
for me is that we have a commitment to the community for a long
range comprehensive planning process and that I understood that
the motion tonight would be very much an indicator to the
applicants that we were heading for public hearing. If it is
ag
2-1-94 14
something less than heading for public hearing, then I would not
mind, but when I heard the staff present why they were doing
their work program --so that they can give us information, so that
we can head towards public hearing, that is what really motivated
me in making my motion. ... I am very sympathetic to these; I am
just also very sympathetic to this larger process."
At the end of the work session, staff explained the work session
and public hearing process.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that, based on the Commissions action
and discussion, it was staff's understanding that none of the
four issues will proceed at this time, but rather will logically
fall under the Comprehensive Plan review, unless specific
direction is given to the staff to bring any of the items back
prior to the Comp Plan review.
Mr. Dotson expressed the hope that Comp Plan review information
could start coming to the Commission so that it could be
assimilated gradually. He anticipated, however, that "decisions"
would be made in a more comprehensive fashion.
Mr. Jenkins suggested that each Commissioner review the
Comprehensive Plan and "pull out things that they think are wrong
with the one we've got." Personnally, he did not think there was
a lot wrong with the existing Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that staff had presented
its list of topics to the Board and the Commission at a joint
session in the Spring of 1993. But the Board and Commission had
been interested in hearing what the public has to say through the
survey and public input process.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested the Commission may need to conduct a work
session to determine how the review will be handled "among
ourselves."
Administrative Review of Site Plan and Subdivisions -
Mr. Keeler presented a report on the one-year experimental period
during which staff was authorized increased administrative
review. The staff report described the benefits which have
resulted from the experiment. Staff encountered no problems with
the process.
Staff was asking the Commission to endorse the following program
intended to officially authorize administrative approval on a
permanent basis:
(1) Endorse the administrative approval process as having
demonstrative benefits over the existing process.
2-1-94 15
(2) Direct staff to identify all findings/modification/waiver
provisions currently afforded to the Planning Commission which
are directly related to site plan approval. The Planning
Commission would determine which provisions would be reserved for
Planning Commisison disposition.
(3) Subsequent to #2, direct staff to present all endorsed
zoning ordinance amendments concommittment with the proposed
subdivision ordinance (which also anticipates administrative
approval).
Staff pointed out that whenever an applicant disagrees with
staff's recommendations the issue is brought before the
Commission.
Mr. Blue expressed full support for the administrative approval
process.
Ms. Huckle expresses reservations about the process. she stated:
"Plans on paper are only as good as their execution on the
ground. In addition to the problems experienced by the residents
in some areas, I submit that the amount of staff time spent on
trying to correct only one development has exceeded any savings
that have been realized by administrative approval. Now that we
have Commissioners who are expert in planning, I think we should
take advantage of their expertise." (She conceded, however, that
the one subdivision she is aware of which has had problems was
approved by the Commission and not by staff.) She was in favor
of deferring action to make the process permanent "for another
few months." She wanted to see if she could review some of the
plans "before we sign off on them." She also preferred to wait
until staff has completed amendments to the Site Plan and
Subdivision Ordinances which are currently in the works.
Ms. Imhoff expressed the "hope that we don't go back to a lot of
individual Planning Commission subdivision and site plan
reviews." Regarding the modifications and waivers, however, she
stated: "That is the area that I think there is a role for the
Planning Commission in order to allow the public to be notified
(and given the opportunity to speak). I guess I would be less
likely to support staff's administrative granting of waivers and
modifications. If it is something that needs to be granted that
frequently, then go in and change the zoning text." (Mr. Keeler
pointed out that staff is proposing to identify all the waiver
and modification sections but there are many which staff would
not want to handle administratively.) Ms. Imhoff felt it would
be helpful to have those things identified which "are not
critical, are outdated, that don't effect adjacent owners, that
are really more matters of site design which the staff can sit
down and negotiate. Those would be fine."
RIS
2-1-94 16
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that adjacent landowners are notified and
can request that any proposal be brought to the Commission. He
felt there were adequate checks and balances. He pointed out
that the process has been working for a year and he did "not want
to back off from it." He felt this type of review belonged with
staff. He concluded: "If out in the community we're finding
things that aren't satisfactory, the question before us is 'let's
get a new planner.' ... These guys are getting paid to do the
job."
Mr. Nitchmann noted that in any business there are going to be
problems and "there will always be problems since... that is the
nature of being human." He stated: "I would think that as we
see problems occurring, that the necessary corrective action will
be put in place by the manager of those departments to try to
ensure that those things don't happen. I have to believe that we
have astute enough planners and managers to make sure that that
occurs. He concluded: "This has been working and I think we
should continue with this."
Addressing Ms. Huckle's concerns, Mr. Blue pointed out that the
Commission is no more likely to find problems than staff. He
felt trying to "micro -manage these is a waste of our time."
Ms. Huckle again expressed the desire to "wait a few more months
to see if I actually go down there to look at these --if I find
anything when I look."
Ms. Imhoff attempted to summarize the discussion: "Madame
Chairman, I don't think I hear any dissention, to continue the
administrative process that has been underway for a year for
another three months; come back and put it on the agenda in three
months; and then if everybody is happy, then do the zoning text
amendments and go forward with the other changes as outlined by
Mr. Keeler."
No strong oppostion to Ms. Imhoff's summarization was expressed.
Mr. Jenkins expressed a readiness to endorse the process.
Mr. Dotson expressed no opposition to a three month delay, but
informed the Commission that he had served on the Land Use
Regulation Committee (8 years ago) and one of the major
accomplishments of that Committee had been the recommendation for
the administrative approval process. He added that there is now
an additional review, through the ARB, which gives him more
confidence in this proposal.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Committee Appointments
�l
MCLOT
17
Planning and Coordination Council Technical Committee: Ms.
Huckle
Charlottesville Area Transportation Study: Mr. Blue
Visioning Advisory: Mr. Jenkins
CIP Technical Committee: Mr. Nitchmann
Mr. Blue called attention to a document prepared by Mr. Walter
Johnson, a former Commissioner, which compared the Rivanna
Greenway with a similar project in another area.
-----------------------------------------
In response to Mr. Dotson's inquiry, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that
the Board has approved the ARB's Final Guidelines. He offered to
make copies available for the Commission.
-----------------------------------------
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05
p.m. _ .
V. Wa a Ci 1 Secretary
DB
9a