Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 27 1993 PC Minutes4-27-93 1 APRIL 27, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 27, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 6, 1993 were approved as amended. WORK SESSION - Accessory Apartments Commission comments and suggestions included the following: BLUE: "I see this as a good thing. It is not the answer to affordable housing but will help a lot of people." He stated that his concerns regarding increased traffic and septic limitations had been addressed by the Health Department and VDOT comments. HUCKLE: "One of my biggest problems is the question of health and safety." She expressed concern about the lack of requirement for fire walls, etc. "People most likely to want to add an accessory apartment for added income are the least likely to be able to afford to do a quality retro-fit." (Mr. Keeler noted that BOCA requirements will have to be met. She wondered if this is necessary since some feel that accessory apartments will not increase the stock of affordable housing. JOHNSON: He was opposed to the inclusion of (h) under 5.1.34 which would require owner occupancy of the dwelling. He felt it would be impossible to enforce. He supported the proposal as written [with the exception of (h).] There was considerable discussion about (h). Mr. Blue agreed that it will be difficult to enforce, but felt that it will put people on notice of what is required and the vast majority of people will comply. (He felt there will always be some who will not comply.) Mr. Blue felt that (h) would also make the concept more acceptable to the public, resulting in less opposition. Mr. Johnson suggested that it could always be added back in if public opposition is encountered. Ms. Andersen expressed her support for (h). It was ultimately decided that (h) would remain. 4-27-93 2 ANDERSEN: Though she expressed support for the proposal as written, she was in favor of consideration being given to the Zoning Administrator's comments. (Staff was reluctant to address these comments until it has had sufficient time to review them. It was decided these comments would be presented at the time of the public hearing and the Commission could make changes at that time if it so desired.) It was ultimately decided (h) would remain. NITCHMANN: He felt the definition needed to be more detailed so as to more clearly define the parameters of an Accessory Apartment. (The possibility of a brochure was suggested which would offer expanded information.) JENKINS: He suggested that the definition should at least state that the apartment would have to comply with certain regulations. He also suggested that the word "permitted" in (a) was misleading. A suggestion was made to change "permitted" to "allowed." GRIMM: He expressed support for the proposal as presented. He felt it would increase the stock of moderately -priced housing. Ms. Huckle stated she could support the proposal if accessory apartments were by special permit. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the proposal for Accessory Apartments be advanced to the Board for comment, as presented, with the following changes: --Change the word "permitted" to "allowed" in (a). The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle clarified that the final action on Accessory Apartments would occur at the time of the public hearing. Mr. Johnson asked that the record show that he felt (h) should be deleted "for reasons previously discussed as being nonenforceable and counter -productive." WORK SESSION - Community Facilities Plan / Solid Waste Commission comments and suggestions: BLUE: He suggested that No. 2 on page 4 should refer specifically to the Albemarle County watershed. He noted that "literally" every landfill is in somebody's watershed, (e.g. everything in Albemarle County is in the watershed for the City of Richmond). 4-27-93 3 JOHNSON: Referring to No. 2 on page 4, he expressed concern about the statement that "sites should be located at least 500 feet from an existing or planned residence...." He felt this was not a far enough distance. JOHNSON: He questioned the necessity of this document since the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority was formed to handle solid waste. "We've taken an organization, it appears to me, and given them a charter to perform with solid waste and turn around now and tell them how they are going to perform. If this is so, then this violates the basic principle of good management that you give a person a task and then go ahead and tell them how to do it." He asked to receive a copy of the Charter of the RSWA and asked: "Are we duplicating or usurping, or just what are we doing with putting this in in view of that charter?" (Mr. Benish attempted to address Mr. Johnson's questions and explained that the purpose was to "establish from the County's perspective what the expectations are for servicing the County. He stated: "We did not intend to usurp the responsibilities of the Authority to be the public works agency involved in solid waste management. To the extent that the County wants to encourage recycling and encourage the Authority to do certain things, this is our opportunity to encourage those things." Mr. Bowling added that this document also addresses the issue of siting of a landfill.) Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer and a member of the Board of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, explained the Authority in some detail and offered additional information on solid waste management and the County's recycling program. NITCHMANN: He asked what experts in the field of solid waste had been involved in the creation of the document under discussion. JOHNSON: He asked the questions: "Is this document appropriate? Is it needed? How comprehensive has the review been, and wouldn't we be better off just to define some objectives for the Authority such as emphasizing recylcing and get back to us?" BLUE: Regarding siting for a future landfill: "I think we ought to continue the emphasis on a regional approach, particularly when you see that we are not going to allow a new site in a designated water supply area (about 2/3 of the county), and we're not going to allow them in agricultural and forestal districts. It doesn't take a very astute person to know that there are a very limited number of places that they are going to be in Albemarle County. So we better be working with the other counties if we possibly can." 4-27-93 4 JENKINS: "I object to this business of ag-forestal districts coming in here so innocently like its protecting ag-forestal and basically the number one priority in the thing seems to be a tool to do things like this and to that extent I object to it." NITCHMANN: Mr. Nitchmann questioned that the document was meant to serve as a "guideline." He felt the way it is worded (with words like "active") indicate that it is a document "that someone is going to have to take action with." He asked: "What is the intent of this document?" BLUE: "I would like to see a little more information on the whole theory of landfilling. JOHNSON: He questioned the detail of the document: "Here we have something that is equally as complex [as building requirements, sewage treatment, etc.], and the best we can possibly do is a few paragraphs of guidelines and objectives rather than getting into this detail which may or may not be appropriate. ... I think we ought to turn this over to the experts or the appropriate authority." BLUE: He felt the emphasis should be on "source reduction and education and legislation." (Ms. Huckle agreed.) HUCKLE: She expressed opposition to No. 2 under (Collection) on page 7. She felt lack of competition would increase costs. She also expressed "adamant opposition" to private ownership of landfills (page 13). GRIMM: He was in favor of the document "remaining in a broader context because that gives alternatives for planners to look at..."' He felt it provided a layman's scope. Mr. Benish interpreted that there was some concern about "technical components" of the document. BLUE: He agreed that the alternatives listed on page 7 were items which should be discussed by the Commission (at a future work session). He also stated: "I think when we discuss these things and make any recommendations, I think we ought to be real careful --if we recommend various things about a site or what a site should have and what it shouldn't have, we ought to be willing to accept it on or near our own property. I'm not going to recommend something in someone else's backyard that I won't accept in mine. I think we all ought to think that way." It was decided another work session would be set to discuss this issue further. Mr. Benish concluded the Commission was interested in "source reduction, legislative efforts and educational aspects." Mr. Nitchmann questioned the specificity of the siting criteria. He asked: "Do we ��7 4-27-93 5 really want this document to be that specific and if so we need to discuss in detail what we're specifying." Mr. Johnson felt the key was to identify a way to effectively increase recycling. OLD BUSINESS Administrative Approval of Water and Sewer Projects - Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Baker presented the staff report. In response to Ms. Huckle's question for clarification, Mr. Baker explained: "You would still be reviewing major distribution lines; it's the feeder lines into homes and developments that you would be giving blanket approval to." Mr. Blue added: "Major distribution or collection." Mr. Blue expressed some lack of understanding over lines that are controlled by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and feeder lines that come under Albemarle County Service Authority. He concluded: "I'm not particularly concerned about staff approval, I think that's fine. But I would like to see some rationale for what Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority does and what the Albemarle County Service Authority does because you cannot say that Rivanna handles only the trunk lines and the Service Authority handles only the minor lines. That's not true." Mr. Benish stated it was his understanding that "Rivanna has control of all the raw water lines and all the lines going to the treatment facilities and any lines that loop those treatment facilities together." Mr. Blue noted: "Not just raw water lines; they've got treated water lines coming into town." Mr. Benish: "Treated lines that connect, that create the loop system." Mr. Blue added: "It's not a matter of size either; Rivanna has some 12 inch lines and ACSA has some 18. So how do you define one as a major and one as a minor? You don't. There's something else that's going on and I don't know what it is. I think as far as staff approval, it seems to me that all we can do is say that we grant staff approval of everything that Albemarle County Service Authority handles and that the Planning Commission wants to look at whatever Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority handles. And we don't have any control over who does what. It's not major and minor lines. It just isn't." In terms of this proposal, he felt it was a "matter of definition." He questioned the benefit of No. 3 in staff's proposal. 4-27-93 6 Ms. Huckle suggested that if changing the existing procedure was going to be too complicated, perhaps it shouldn't be changed. Mr. Bowling asked staff if they would have any trouble deterining the difference between a trunk and distribution line. Mr. Keeler responded: "No, I don't think so. If we get a line in that's serving one development, but it's also sized to serve a region, we'll bring that to the Planning Commission." Mr. Blue asked: "What would you do with the Airport line?" Mr. Benish replied: "It would have to come to you." Mr. Blue: "Even though it's within the jurisdictional area of Albemarle County Service Authority and is their line." Mr. Bowling noted: "The distinction is not between what the Service Authority owns and what Rivanna owns, it's whether it's a trunk line and collection line or a distribution line." Staff confirmed that they were not making a distinction between what is owned by the RWSA and the ACSA. Mr. Benish explained futher: "The distinction is with the purpose of the line." Mr. Grimm felt the primary concern is with "trunk lines that establish a new service." Mr. Bowling pointed out that there would be some serious legal problems if the Commission said "we're not going to allow you to have water service in an area that is designated by the Board of Supervisors to have water service." Regarding routing of lines connecting one service area to another, Mr. Bowling indicated the Commission would have "trouble with that too" unless an engineer is hired to challenge the Service Authority's engineer. Mr. Blue concluded: "So why look at them at ail?" Some concerns raised by the Commission at the previous hearing on this issue were noted briefly, i.e. sizing of lines and public information. It was noted that the RWSA would determine the size of the lines for future development. Mr. Nitchmann noted that he (and Ms. Huckle) had requested the addition of No. 3 in order to bring these issues before the general public and to be sure that all potential growth is taken into consideration in the sizing of the lines. Ms. Huckle pointed out that she had never envisioned denying water service to anyone for which the Board had approved service. She stated her main concern was that there be as much information, and public knowledge, as possible of these lines. She suggested that these items could be handled has previous Consent Agenda items have been handled. 1o�9 4-27-93 7 Ms. Huckle asked for a clearer- definition of the term "generally" in the statement "Staff opinion is that water and sewer projects within the Growth Area are generally in compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan...." Mr. Benish responded: "That is our way of saying if there is anything that we feel uncomfortable with, we're going to bring it to you." Ms. Huckle again expressed the feeling that the Commission should not have granted administrative approval of site plans. She did not feel the Commission is overworked. Referring to Ms. Huckle's statement about Commission workload, Mr. Johnson recommended that the staff report be amended so that the first sentence in the third paragraph would read: "In the interests of increasing approval efficiency, staff suggests...." (Mr. Nitchmann agreed.) Mr. Johnson concluded: "To have something brought to us just because we might be interested is not economically efficient and shouldn't be pursued without other reasons." Mr. Nitchmann noted that he had supported administrative approval of site plans and this current proposal because it will reduce time delays and therefore reduce costs to the public. (Mr. Grimm agreed.) MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that staff be granted administrative approval of proposed water and sewer projects (15.1-456 Review) within the County's growth area which meet the following criteria: 1. The proposed water and/or sewer project is located solely within a designated Growth Area; and, 2. The proposed utility service is within the appropriate jurisdictional area for the type of service requested; and 3. The proposed utility service is for water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, not to include water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities and the like. Discussion: Ms. Andersen asked about what might happen if a change in staff results in a change in interpretation of the above -criteria. Mr. Benish did not believe that would be a problem because most persons involved in land development "at the level that we are" will understand the interpretation. Mr. Benish added that based on the three criteria listed, there would be very few projects which will not come before the Commission. 23() 4-27-93 8 The nation passed (u:l) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Administrative Review of Site Plans and subdivisions Mr. Keeler presented the first quarterly report on the recently adopted process for administrative review of site plans and subdivisions. Mr. Johnson suggested that in the future reports place emphasis on staff time savings rather than Commission time savings. Ms. Huckle continued to express reservations about the administrative approval process. MISCELLANEOUS Joint meeting with the City Planning Commission to be held Thursday, May 27 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Topic of discussion: Recreation. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. DB I