Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 05 1994 PC Minutes4-5-94 APRIL 5, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 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 Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Tom Leback, representing the University of Virginia. Absent: Commission Jenkins and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes March 22, 1994 of were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Pasture Fence Mountain A icultural/Forestal District and Review of Blue Run A ricultural/Forestal District The Commission was asked to accept the applications. Mr. Nitchmann asked if either of these were in areas which might be considered for growth area designation in the upcoming review of the Comp Plan. Mr. Benish answered that they were not. There was a brief discussion of the Gray Rock Ag/Forestal District which had been included in the Consent Agenda on the tentative agenda. Mr. Cilimberg briefly explained action recently taken by the Board of Supervisors (in response to recent State legislation) which allows "local" ag/forestal districts to request use value taxation. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dotson asked under what conditions an application might be rejected. Mr. Cilimberg explained the process which an ag/forestal application follows. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan The Commission continued its discussion of the status of the Goals, Objectives and Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. No action was required of the Commission. /t3 4-5-94 2 Significant comments and requests of staff were as follows: --There was a discussion on new State legislation related to agricultural/forestal users. Ms. Imhoff explained that a "right to farm" bill was passed during session that does not allow localities ti impose special permits in any zones but does allow for setbacks and other regulations. Mr. Blue felt this might present a problem for Albemarle County because of the fact that there are many subdivisions in the rural areas. He noted: "Our primary objective in our Comprehensive Plan, for protection of the rural areas, is to protect agricultural and forestal uses and it seems to me that that has the potential for presenting some real conflicts if we don't do something about breaking down the rural areas zone into what is truly agricultural and what is not." He felt having separate zones might make it easier to administer protection for both. Ms. Imhoff stated she felt she had a "broader sense of what rural areas means," i.e. it is not just a rural areas zone, "there are other things which come from open space protection, water quality, air quality, scenic vistas." Mr. Dotson interpreted that Mr. Blue was "almost calling for a suburban area designation." --Mr. Nitchmann asked for more information on why agricultural employment has increased from 1.7% to 2.5%, as stated in the Community Survey. --Ms. Imhoff was interested in having more information on the TJPDC's Priority Watershed Project. She also inquired as to the status of the Moorman's River Exceptional Waters designation. Staff was to find out the date of the next scheduled public hearing. --Referring to brochures mentioned on page I of the staff report, Ms. Huckle stated she had few concerns about the "objectives." Rather, her concern was with the "status of things." She wanted to see things actually come to "fruition" and not just be printed in a book. She recommended that a brief explanation of those things which effect water quality (e.g. fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) should be prepared and included in the tax bills. She also expressed the desire that more use be made of Table 35 on page 63 of the Comp Plan. She favored the following: (1) Changing the runoff formula from agriculture to residential; (2) Change the definition of perennial streams since the present one exempts too many streams; (3) Discontinuation of the policy to allow piping of streams for the convenience of developers. Staff stated these were items which would be addressed by the Water Resource Committee during the Comp Plan review. --Mr. Nitchmann felt that any individual, committee, or group which is working on Comp Plan issues and may be bringing forth proposals "which are of a nature that would restrict the property rights of the individuals within the County or would have any impact on the individuals in the County regarding a possible increase in taxes, or would have some fiscal impact on the County," should also be prepared to speak to the fiscal impact of those proposals on the County "as well as just protection of the natural resources." Ms. Imhoff objected to this suggestion because she felt it is the Commission's and the Board's role to deal with costs and benefits. She stated she would object to that criteria which she felt would "tie the hands" of any committee which the Commission is looking to for assistance. Mr. 4-5-94 3 Nitchmann clarified that his suggestion was related only to a proposal that would be an "expansion" and he had not not meant to suggest that an analysis be made of "existing" goals and objectives. Ms. Imhoff did not think any of the committees would have the resources to prepare a fiscal impact analysis. Mr. Nitchmann stated he was interested in knowing the "cause and effect relationship in regard to the fiscal impact that it may have on the county or the citizens of the county." Mr. Blue felt Mr. Nitchmann had a point, i.e. "when we have suggestions to protect the environment --which most of us are for --we also ought to have some balance to say 'we are going to protect the environment, but at what cost."' Mr. Nitchmann explained that perhaps the term "fiscal impact" had been interpreted more literally than he intended. He clarified that what he was interested in was "having information on what the cost benefits are and relationships are of some of the things that we are doing." He described this as a "cause and effect" type of analysis. Ms. Imhoff felt such a requirement would have to apply to any proposal, and not just those related to environmental protection. Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Blue agreed. --The following information was requested in relation to groundwater issues: (1) How many individual private wells are there in the county and how many community systems? Could a map be prepared showing areas with large concentrations of individual wells and also the location of community systems? (2) What is known about the groundwater situation in North Garden and are there other areas in the County where the availability of groundwater is felt to be a problem?. (3) Are private water systems going to be able to survive given the new federal restrictions and testing requirements? (4) Is there any information available on the existence and location of underground storage tanks which might cause groundwater contamination? Ms. Imhoff suggested that staff contact the Reston office of USGS to obtain some of their recent reports on groundwater studies. --Mr. Nitchmann asked that staff make the Commission aware of any requests for additional information which will involve "dollars which may not be available," in terms of available staff time. ---Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that the objective to "preserve the county's scenic resources" could be moved up as a priority. --The following requests were made in relation to historic resources: (1) Is any information available on how historic resources contribute to tourism? (2) Investigate the possibility of having a Historic Preservation Advisory Committee for Comp Plan review purposes. Ms. Imhoff suggested contacting the Department of Historic Resources. She was aware of studies on both Fredericksburg and Williamsburg. --Referring to page 19, item (b), Mr. Blue questioned whether "the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities" should have first priority in the four elements that form the basis for the Rural Areas." (Ms. Huckle expressed the feeling that this element was just as important as the others.) He agreed this was important but questioned whether it was the most important of the four. He wanted there to be discussion during the Camp Plan review //S 4-5-94 4 to "make sure that what we're really talking about is the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities and not purely prevention of growth." Referring to this same item, Ms. Imhoff felt she could make a strong argument that "conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources" should have top priority. Ms. Imhoff felt the crux of the question is "what are the rural areas for --how much are you protecting them --what tools are you using to protect them?" Mr. Blue agreed, stating: "That's exactly it; the rural areas are not just for agricultural and forestal, they are also for people because we've got tons of people living in the rural areas now." --Mr. Nitchmann expressed the feeling that strategies (action items) which have actually been accomplished should be deleted from the new Comp Plan. --Mr. Dotson stated he felt there was a shortage of maps which show how things relate, i.e. "how do the things currently served by water and sewer relate to the areas designated for growth?" He felt a question to be resolved is: "If the extension of water and sewer is going to be incredibly expensive, then I want to look at having a more intense use of the area we can afford to serve." Mr. Blue agreed. Ms. Imhoff asked if staff could provide information on the location of existing package treatment plants in the County. Ms. Huckle felt that the Village designation should be re-evaluated in terms of water and sewer availability, and in relation to "the amount of buildout and the desire of the residents to preserve their small scale communitites." Mr. Blue commented: "I agree with you; I have some strong reservations about promoting villages if we are not going to be able to provide public water and sewer. I would prefer to see a little more use of the rural areas ... maybe be expanded to even a five -acre limit, to allow people who want to live in the country, but do not make that demand for public water and sewer." Ms. Imhoff interpreted Mr. Blue was speaking of "sprawl development" which is "eveyrthing, nationally, they told you not do do." Mr. Blue disagreed with that interpretation. He felt there are a small percentage of people who do not wish to live in close proximity to others, even with amenities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc --people who want to live in the rural area but don't need a lot land. It was his hope that the 5-Iot division could be reconsidered, and, perhaps, eliminate the I - acre village. He felt there at least should be public discussion on this issue to see how many people there are in the category he described. Ms. Huckle pointed out that a large percentage of real estate transactions in the last few years have been in those developments with amenities referred by Mr. Blue. Ms. Imhoff suggested that areas which have a track record with package treatement plants (such as Loudoun County) could offer some insight into this question. Mr. Blue pointed out that Albemarle County also has a track record with package treatment plants, "and in many cases it hasn't worked." --Mr. Dotson expressed an interest in "revisiting" some of the discussions which had taken place during the last Camp Plan review in relation to the North Garden area. --Referring to page 24, Ms.Huckle felt the policy question of subsidizing, through general County revenues, the cost of providing utilitites to the villages, should be discussed. /40 4-5-94 Ms. Imhoff felt there is a "genuine public benefit" to be gained by serving growth areas with public water and sewer. --Mr. Blue asked for more information on the Pedestrian Obstacle Study. Ms. Imhoff felt the Commission should spend some time on this study in terms of "design considerations of the urban area." --There was a brief discussion of the Bike Plan. Ms. Huckle was in favor of the adoption of some biking regulations. It was her understanding that there is no road in the County which is safe for bicycles. She felt the Bike Plan should not have been published as a public document. Mr. Leback pointed out that an important reason for the development of a Bike Plan is that VDOT will not plan for bike lanes on roads unless a locality has an adopted Bike Plan. --Ms. Imhoff asked for more information on the County's capacity for commercial and industrial designation as well as residential "build out analysis," i.e. how much undeveloped commercial and industrial land presently exists. (Staff stated that information has already been given to the Commission in the initial "Growth Area Expansion Study.") --Mr. Blue expressed the hope that the upcoming discussions on development rights issues will be well -publicized by the press. Ms. Imhoff again requested that a chart be prepared comparing what other counties are doing in relation to the development rights question. She also reported that the Faquier County Planning Commission is presently planning to visit some Maryland counties to study development densities. They have invited the Albemarle County Planning Commission to join them. --Referring to the Action Agenda, Ms. Huckle felt the development of a Social Data Base should be given a higher priority. --Ms. Imhoff felt one item missing from Albemarle's Comp Plan is "studying the county in the context of the region." She felt there should be a "regional" component in the next Comp Plan. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: --Ms. Treva Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters - Regarding the issue of groundwater, she suggested that consideration be given to a requirement for the certification of on -site sewage contractors and also the development of County regulations for underground storage tanks. She supported the County having its own Sanitarian. She expressed support for recently proposed "stronger regulations" being considered by the State. She was interested in further discussion on the issue of subsidizing public utilitites to the villages. She felt this would be a "hot" issue. --Mr. Tom Olivier, representing the Citizens for Albemarle - He offered further information on the Exceptional Waters designation for the Moorman's River. He reported that 4-5-94 public comment would be accepted until April 11. He anticipated a decision by the end of May. He was not aware of any effect this designation would have on existing agricultural uses. Closing comments by the Commission: --Mr. Nitchmann felt more information was needed on population projections over the next 20 years. He wondered if there should be some discussion on some of the "assumptions" made in relation to projections. He suggested drawing "circles around the city," at distances of 1 mile between each, and then discussing what land is available within those areas for denser growth development, what land is available to retain as green space, etc. (Mr. Benish explained that the Commission would have more information after it receives the background report which staff will provide at a later time.) He asked specific questions about projections related to school enrollments and employment. In the interests of being as productive as possible, Mr. Dotson felt it would be helpful to arrive at some systematic way to focus discussion on these items. MISCELLANEOUS CIE - Mr. Baker distributed a memo describing proposed changes in the CIP review process. He asked the Commission to review the memo with any comments to be discussed at the April 12 meeting. Resolution pfIn�Related to Fees - To correct an error made by a former Resolution of Intent, Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board was asking that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Section 35.0 FEES, to allow the BOS to waive fees in certain circumstances, on any type of application. (NOTE: The resolution previously adopted had mistakenly referred only to zoning text amendments, whereas the intent was that it apply to all types of applications.) MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, 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 35.0 FEES to allow the BOS to waive fees in certain circumstances. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 4-5-94 o V. Wayn Cilimberg;• ecr /f9