Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 15 1994 PC Minutes2-15-94 FEBRUARY 15. 1994 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 15, 1994 , Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair, Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhof ; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. JuanDiego Wade, Transportation Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of February 1, 1994 were unanimously approved. [NOTE: Referring to her statement on page S of the February 1, 1994 minutes in relation to review of the Supplementary Regulations, Ms. Imhoff clarified, for staffs information, that it was her suggestion that there should be more than just a "club" definition for recreational facilities. (The item under discussion was Rio Hill Apartment Preliminary Site Plan.) She suggested no actual amendment to the February 1 minutes.] WORK SESSION Acegssoa Apartments Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He described briefly the history of the topic for the benefit of the new Commissioners. Ms. Huckle made the following statement prior to the Commission's discussion of the issue: "When this issue was before us previously it was given a superficial and cursory review and it is hoped that this Planning Commission will give this subject the just review and consideration that this excellent staff report deserves. This is a wide ranging proposal with many ramifications and I think we would be irresponsible if we did not carefully weigh all of them before making a decision or taking a stand." In respone to Ms. Huckle's statement, Mr. Blue stated: "I have no problem with reviewing this again. I am happy to do it with new Commissioners, but I take issue with your statement that it was given a superficial review. I don't agree with that. But I am not arguing the point that we ought to go ahead and study it; I think that's fine." Mr. Dotson asked for a clarification of the question before the Commission. Mr. Keeler explained the Commission was being asked to adopt a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning. Ordinance, Section 3.0 Definitions and Section 5.0 Supplementary Regulations, as related to "accessory apartment." He stressed that the adoption of such a Resolution was not a "committment" to amend the Ordinance, but rather begins the process for getting the matter to public hearing. 2-15-94 2 Ms. Imhoff added that after reviewing the Board minutes on this matter, it was made clearer to her that the Board had requested that the Commission hold a public hearing on this issue. As the Commission attempted to understand the options for dealing with the matter, Mr. Keeler explained the process for making amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (ZTA) or amendments to the Zoning Map (ZMA). Mr. Blue again asked Mr. Keeler to explain why staff feels that "accessory apartments have to be applied across the board to all residential zones, rather than tying them directly to a specific zone or, even more particularly, perhaps leaving out subdivisions that have their own homeowners covenants." Mr. Keeler explained: "My recollection is you thought it was a good idea and it should be provided to all. The Housing Committee recommended that it be made available to anybody that has a single-family dwelling. The way you do it is to define it as being 'accessory.' But if you want to confine it to certain districts, then I think we would have to call it something else at a minimum. Then you would have to be prepared to defend why people that have single-family dwellings in the R4 or Rb and RIO zones can have an apartment which you don't count towards density, but people in R1, R2 and RA cannot. You have to come up with a rational articulation. I believe, based on land use issues, ... the Zoning Ordinance is a land use regulation. It's not intended to do a number of things that it is being asked to do nowdays. So, if you can't distinguish, based on the primary land use matter, why you don't count dwellings in certain areas, and in other areas you don't even permit them, you're inviting a challenge." Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that the RA is "entirely different" than other zones, though it is treated the same way. He pointed out that the Rural Areas comprise a large portion of the County and have a wide variety of uses, i.e. "it is everything that is left over after we have taken out the urban rings." He added: "It seems to me that it would be entirely possible to have accessory apartments, not only acceptable, but desirable, in many parts of the rural areas, and in some parts of them it would not be. Whereas where you get down to more specific zones, Rl, R4 and so forth, it is pretty easy to see --not gust accessory apartments --but what things could go there." Mr. Blue concluded: "I guess my argument now is the Rural Areas is not a very well defined zoning district." Ms. Imhoff felt that was one of the key questions that would be addressed during the Comp Plan review. For that reason she stated she was "very loathe to get into the very narrow, though deserving, zoning text amendment for accessory apartments," because she was in favor of looking at the bigger question of housing affordability. Ms. Huckle noted that there "we are trying to discourage growth in the rural areas yet there are more opportunities for accessory apartments in the rural areas than anyplace else which would really subvert the whole Comp Plan as we know it." She expressed concerns about adequate provisions for utilities (drainfields, water) and roads in the rural areas: It was leer 1�_o 0m, W5'0] 3 feeling that the issue should be "discussed county -wide and not just in one section or another." Mr. Blue noted that the Health Department and VDOT had addressed the those issues in the staff report. He felt no one would argue "that we should be doing something that is detrimental to the public health and safety." Based on her reading of the staff report, Ms. Huckle did not feel accessory apartments would solve the problem of affordable housing, but would just "create a lot of confusion_" Ms. Imhoff suggested that it might be helpful to have a representative from another locality relate theiz experiences with accessory apartments. (She suggested James City County.) Staff explained that 15 other localities had been canvassed. In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, staff did not know how many accessory apartments are currently in existence in the County. There was a brief discussion about allowing accessory apartments by special permit and only in owner -occupied dwellings. (Ms. Huckle called attention to Faquier and Fairfax Counties.) Mr. Keeler questioned the enforcability of such a restriction. Mr. Nitchmann suggested that it might be written so as to require owner occupancy when the permit was first applied for. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that other counties do not have the unique distinction of having 70% of their citizens in one zone, and they can, therefore, make differientations. Noting that all Commissioners were in agreement that there was no option on the public hearing issue, Ms. Imhoff made the following motion: MOTION: That the Albemarle County Planning Commission, to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS to define "accessory apartment" as accessory to a single family dwelling. Amend 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS to allow "accessory apartment" in all single family dwellings without regard to density and to impose certain restrictions on "accessory apartment." Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. (NOTE: The word "consider" was added to this motion at the suggestion of Mr. Dotson. Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Dotson agreed to the suggested amendment to the motion.) 57 2-15-94 4 Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann suggested that some of examples of accessory apartments, and the results of the proposed amendment, be included with the legal advertisement so that it would be made clearer to the public. Mr. Bowling pointed out that the legal ad must be run it its usual fashion, but examples could be run separately in an information -type article. Ms.Huckle asked if the legal ad would make reference to the Supplementary Regulations also. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively and actually read the language that would be used in the ad. Mr. Dotson was in favor of including an explanation of the significance of the proposed amendment with all future legal ads. Staff expressed concerns about the limits of the Planning Department's advertising budget. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the County already provides more notice, "that is not required by Code," that any other area in the State. Mr. Keeler suggested the Commission might want to take this issue up in a future joint session with the Board. Noting that the discussion had strayed from the original topic, Ms. Imhoff reminded the Commission that there was a motion on the floor. Ms. Huckle expressed the feeling that more advertising is needed for this particular topic because "this is something that is going to effect people in all the zones." She suggested a "box" ad. There was a clarification of the motion for the benefit of Ms. Vaughan. The previously stated motion for adoption of a Resolution of Intent passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- WORK SESSION VDOT ix -Year Secondary Plan Mr. Benish and Mr. Wade introduced the topic and explained the process followed by staff in the preparation of the report. He stated that it was intended that the "starting point" reflect an objective review of the projects. Particular Commission questions and comments were as follows: "What percentage of the roads in the County are unpaved?" (Nitchmann) 5- 2-15-94 5 (182 miles gravel/alI wealther + 48 miles light surface 230 miles unpaved - 30% of total roads) Mr. Nitchmann felt a good "vision" for the County would be to have all the counties' roads paved within a certain amount of time. He asked the VDOT representative to provide a reasonable estimate for achieving that goal. It was noted that it is the Board's policy to require right-of-way dedication for pavement of unpaved roads. (Lack of this dedication has resulted in many roads remaining unpaved.) "How much time do we spend battling through to priority 67 if there really isn't a lot of money?" (Imhoff) From staffs comments, she interpreted that there "really isn't a lot of room to maneuver" beyond project 24. The Commission should "make it's pitch" for anything beyond 24 which it feels is a "burning problem.". (Mr. Benish pointed out that that does not include unpaved roads because VDOT is required to spend a minimum amount of money on unpaved roads.) There was a brief discussion of those projects which VDOT has determined not to be eligible for secondary funds, though those projects are eligible for revenue sharing funds. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the County had any influence over making these projects eligible for secondary funds. Mr. Cilimberg explained that, at best, the County could request that VDOT consider a project. (Mr. Nitchmann was concerned about "Avon to Rt. 20" in particular.) Ms. Imhoff was unsure about the Railroad Crossing projects. Mr. Benish explained that in all instances the improvements were for either lights, lights and gates, or gates. Ms. Imhoff felt an argument could be made for moving the Hatton Ferry/Howardsville project higher on the list, given the amount of traffic, particularly in the summer months. She felt those crossings which are in high tourist traffic areas should be moved up the list. Ms. Huckle questioned the cost estimate for the Advance Mills/Jacobs Run sight distance project. She felt $300,000 was excessive for cutting trees and grading a bank. The VDOT representative noted that the cost may include right-of-way acquisition. Ms. Huckle questioned why the cost is included if it is not certain since the cost may effect how the Commission looks at projects. (Mr. Blue felt that issues of public safety were given more consideration than cost.) In Mr. Nitchmann's attempt to understand the list, it was determined that those projects marked "YES" fail in the current six -year plan. (The VDOT representative explained that a "YES" does not necessarily mean that funds have already been allocated but a year has been chosen where the funds will be allocated.) He asked if the County could recommend that VDOT change a "YES" project to a "NO" so that those funds could be used to "accomplish more items on the list. He had in mind, particulary, the Meadow Creek Parkway ($72,000,000). He felt that money could be used in a much more productive manner. Mr. Blue pointed out that an allocation doesn't mean "real money." Mr. Nitchmann felt strongly that this project should not be included in the current VDOT financial plan. He questioned' showing that much money for this project, "at this point in time," when it's final alignment 53 2-15-94 has not yet been decided. (Mr. Nitchmann clarified that he was speaking of that part of the project "north of Rio Road - No. 14 on VDOT's list.) Mr. Cilimberg noted that the $72,000,000 is the actual anticipated cost, but that amount has not actually been included in the financial plan. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that if the Commission feels the Meadow Creek Parkway should not receive funding, it should be lowered in the priority list to whatever point it is felt appropriate_ It was clarified that the money shown for this section is actually County money, because, to date, no money has actually been allocated by VDOT for that section of the Parkway north of Rio Road. Allocations for that section are set to begin in 1997. (Mr. Blue noted that this is the first time that has shown up.) It was the topic of the Meadow Creek Parkway which generated the most discussion among the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann felt that including the project sends the message to VDOT that the Commission feels "it is still a very viable project" as it appears in their description. He felt the project should be placed lower on the list. There was no support from other Commissioners for changing the priority at this time. There was a brief discussion of the Commission's role in the Six -Year Plan process.' Because of the time limitations, it was staffs preference that the Commission not hold a public hearing on their recommendations to the Board, though they may hold a hearing if they choose. Mr. Blue explained that historically the Commission has taken an action on their final recommendations for the priority list and passed those on to the Board along with comments on individual projects. Referring to the Millington Bridge project, Ms. Imhoff felt the statement implied that the County had the "standing" to intercede with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation on this issue, when actually that is not the County's role. Mr. Nitchmann expressed a concern about an increase in traffic level at the intersection of Rt. 250 and Rt. 22. He asked if this was the proper time to bring this issue up and how could this be made a part of this list, (Mr. Wade explained that those are both primary roads and would not fall under this review of secondary roads.) Mr. Dotson expressed the hope that a map could be included with next year's report. It was the consensus of the Commission that action would be taken on the priority list at a regular meeting, but no public hearing would be held. Ms. Huckle pointed out that the Board would hold a public hearing on the Six -year Plan. Staff confirmed that the Commission had no objections to the recommendation to increase the financing for priority No. 1. Regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway issue, Mr. Dotson requested copies of previous staff reports and Board minutes. Sy 2-15-94 Mr. Benish called attention to a report on VDOT's Sufficiency Rating System for bridges which he had just handed to the Commission. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Imhoff again expressed the desire to begin work sessions on the Comp Plan sooner than May. Thursday hketines - Mr. Ciiimberg announced that after the February 24 Thursday meeting, there would no more regular meetings scheduled on Thursdays. All regular meetings will be scheduled for Tuesdays. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission of the Visioning meeting scheduled for Sunday, February 20th at Buford School. Resolution of Appreciation for Previous Commissioners MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that a Resolution of Appreciation be adopted recognizing the service of previous Commissioners Walter Johnson, Phil Grimm, and Ellen Andersen. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Imhoff questioned the need for roll call votes on "simple" motions. She suggested that the agenda indicate which items called for a roll call vote. She also noted that the Chair could indicate whether a voice or roll call vote was needed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p-m. S5