Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 15 1993 PC Minutes6-15-93 1 JUNE 15, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 15, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Nitchmann and Andersen. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 18, 1993 were approved as amended. North Fork Business Park - Rearuest for Private Roads - Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions. The report stated: "Based on the reduced grading for private roads, staff is able to support the request. Staff also notes that this development is a planned development industrial park under unified control and therefore maintenance can be insured." In response to Ms. Huckle's concern about control of on -street parking on private roads, Mr. Fritz explained that there is some control through the site review process, i.e. parking can be restricted to designated areas only. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the previously existing conditions on the property will remain. Mr. Johnson called attention to a statement contained in a January 22, 1993 letter to UREF, from Mr. Cilimberg. i.e. "...unanimously approved the above -noted request to amend agreement #16 of ZMA-78-15 to permit use of private roads." He interpreted this to mean "they have the authority to use private roads." Mr. Fritz stated the approval granted by the letter referred to by Mr. Johnson gave the applicant the authority of "request" private roads. Mr. Fritz called attention to a sentence which was added to condition No. 16 of the previous approval which stated: "Nothing contained in this condition will preclude the applicant from requesting private roads in the future." Mr. Johnson felt the letter was misleading. He felt condition No. 16 could be interpreted as referring to "future" roads "over and above that which was the subject of ZMA-78-15." Mr. Blue agreed that there was a lack of preciseness in the wording of the letter. However, he recalled that the former 11 6-15-93 2 approval had granted the applicant the right to request private roads. Mr. Johnson felt that the record should show that "authority was granted to request private roads and not agreed to permit use of private roads." Mr. Blue noted that the concept of linking subdivisions together through major roads appears to have been almost abandoned. Though he agreed there was validity to the concern about eliminating thru-traffic through subdivisions where children are apt to be playing, he pointed out that this prevents the approval of major arteries and makes it difficult to, for instance, relieve the traffic problems on Rt. 29. He felt this was a "perfect time to request that we have a good road, built to the proper standards, that would prevent people from having to go around Robin's barn to get to the airport." He noted that if these roads are private the owners have the right to close them off. He concluded that public roads would be beneficial. Mr. Blue also called attention to the fact that the applicant "barely" meets the 30% standard for less environmental degradation for private roads. Mr. Fritz pointed out the road which "would have the most significance between use of public vs. private." He reminded the Commission that "less" than the applicant's request could be approved, e.g. one road could be public and one private. Mr. Fritz also explained that private roads will have to be built to VDOT standards, but the difference is that the standards will be rolling terrain for public roads and mountainous terrain for private roads. Mr. Blue continued to express concern about the fact that if the roads are private, they can be "cut off" at any time. Mr. Fritz clarified: "The provision under which they are requesting private roads, in and of itself, has nothing to do with significant degradation. Merely by the fact that it is a non-residential use, they can request private roads. We simply have utilized that 30% rule that's found elsewhere in the ordinance as a guide." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the use of private roads in an industrial development. She stated: "It just doesn't seem right for an industrial use with those huge trailers to try to use curvet', hilly roads. They'll have trouble getting up the grades; there's not going to be much room for them to manuver." Mr. Grimm asked how much of the roadway would benefit from mountainous standards. Mr. Fritz replied: "It's very few locations --a stream crossing is probably the most 69 6-15-93 3 significant place where it benefits by significantly reducing the amount of fill that's needed." The applicant was represented by Mr. Sam Heminway. His comments included the following: --There are two substantial stream crossings, and private roads will significantly reduce (30 to 40% less) the amount of work in the stream bed. --Road A, with public roads, will include a significant amount of stream degradation. --Landscaping will be substantially different for a public road (because of VDOT restrictions on plantings in their right-of-way). --VDOT will not allow utilities to be placed in their right-of-way. Mr. Johnson asked if all concerns related to the Rt. 29 intersections with these roads have been addressed by VDOT, i.e. distance between crossovers, traffic lights, etc. Mr. Fritz explained that crossover closings and locations have been set since 1978 (updated in 1990). He also stated that there is no alternative access point on Rt. 29. Mr. Heminway was unable to answer Mr. Blue's question as to the cost savings in a private vs. a public road. He did not think it would be significant. In answer to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Heminway explained the applicant is requesting private roads because they will involve significantly less environmental degradation. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Grimm expressed support for the request for private roads. He felt this would make the property more attractive and, therefore, more marketable, to potential industries. Mr. Johnson made the following statement: "Section 18-36(d) states that 'no subdivision shall be approved... unless... the Commission (determines) that (4) Except where required by the Commission to serve a specific public purpose, such private road shallnot be designed to serve through traffic nor to intersect the state highway system in more than one location.' As a commercial 'business park' convenient access by the public may be an important factor effecting its success. Section 18-36(e) (1) states that private roads permitted under subsection 18-36(b)(3) shall conform to the requirements of Table B except that etc. In addition it states that mountainous terrain design standards may be authorized 'upon finding that for a specific, identifiable reason, the general public interest as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better served.' The Engineering Department comments that public 7a 6-15-93 4 roads may cause degradation which is 'marginally significant,' but 'road plans as submitted are not optimized' and 'further refinement and more efficient balancing of cut and fills would reduce the percentage increase (of earthwork).' Regarding the stream crossings, public roads may require more fill than a private road. I support your comments relative to doing anything that we can to support the success probability of the operation, but in a private road there are definitely increased costs which effect the increase of operation and these are increased costs related to maintenance, repair and liability.... And this doesn't consider the possibility of ultimately the County having to take over operation of these roads. In this case, to me, the justification of a private road because of less impact on the area does not counterbalance the other disadvantages and I cannot support the request." Mr. Grimm noted that in order for the development to be a success it must have convenient access. Mr. Johnson felt a public road offers more convenient access than does a private one. In response to Mr. Blue's question about roads in existing industrial developments, Mr. Benish explained that there is a mixture. He went on to explain that the decision "caters to the character of the development that is being proposed." Ms. Huckle felt that though aesthetics are important, they are not as important as safety. She expressed concern about the recent approval of Peter Jefferson Place with private roads being construed as a precedent. She concluded she could not support this proposal. (Mr. Fritz clarified that staff's recommendation had not been based on the action on Peter Jefferson Place. That development had been used only as a guideline since it is the only recent example of comparable size. Staff did not intend to set a precedent.) Mr. Jenkins felt one argument for approving the request might be based on the letter given the applicant by the Board of Supervisors saying they "would entertain making the roads private." He stated there was no doubt in his mind that the road from Rt. 29 to the airport would get a great deal of use and should, therefore, be a public road. He stated he could not support both roads being private. Mr. Blue agreed. He did not think the justification of less environmental degradation was convincing since it was a very marginal difference. He supported the road from 29 to 606 being a public road. He was not opposed to the other road being private. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that Road A (from Rt. 606 to Rt. 29) be a public road and that Road B be a private road. 71 6-15-93 5 Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion because the applicant has made no claim that Road B, as a private road, would have any effect on his success. Mr. Fritz recommended the following amended conditions: No. 2: "Department of Engineering approval of road plans for Road B as shown on a plan initialled WDF, dated 6-15-93;" and add No. 3: "Road A as shown on a plan initialled WDF and dated 6-15-93 shall be public." Ms. Huckle agreed this would be preferable to both roads being private. However, she stated this still would not address her concerns "about somebody less responsible latching onto this because it is going to be cheaper and then we're going to have bad problems." The motion failed to pass (2:3) with Commissioners Blue and Jenkins voting for the motion and Commissioners Johnson, Huckle and Grimm voting against. MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the request for private roads for North Fork Business Park be denied based on those concerns identified in the discussion. The motion passed (4:1) with Commissioner Grimm casting the dissenting vote. WORK SESSION Housing Committee - Mr. Benish introduced the topic. The purpose of the work session was to begin discussion of the creation of a standing committee on housing including its function, membership and relationship within the governmental structure. Significant comments: Johnson: He felt the purpose "puts the benefits to humans in an equal status with material items." He suggested this alternative: "To promote a variety of safe, sanitary, and affordable housing types for county residents of all income groups." He felt this was more in line with the statement in the Comprehensive Plan. Johnson: He felt the Housing Commission should report to the Housing Coordinator and not to the Board of Supervisors. lot 6-15-93 (Mr. Benish explained that the Housing Commission would be equal to the Planning Commission, with members appointed by the Board of Supervisors.) Johnson: He suggested that there should be legal representation on the Commission, or at least access to legal counsel. Johnson: He questioned whether Karen Lilleleht and Jenny Greenwood, who were recommended in Ms. Perry's April 30 letter, would have time to serve on the Committee. Johnson: He recommended the following Charter for the Housing Commission: (1) Identify and evaluate those processes in being and potential to achieve affordable housing within Albemarle County. (2) In each case, make specific recommendations for continuation, change, abandonment or acceptance, as appropriate. (3) In all cases, complete social and economic impacts of these will be identified and evaluated. (4) A formal report of operations will be made annually to the Housing Coordinator. Interim reports may be made as appropriate. HUCKLE: She expressed concern about the implication in the Housing Coalition's Charter which implied that housing and environmental considerations were equal. She stated: "I agree that housing is very important, but not to the extent of overriding environmental considerations. I don't mean aesthetics and trees, etc. I'm talking about using experimental, untried, unapproved on -site sewage disposal systems on land which may be cheap because it isn't really suitable for dwellings. I do not not think it is humane to sell, or give some poor person some property which is going to create health problems, .... I do not think it is humane to lower our environmental standards or considerations for low-cost housing." BLUE: He agreed with Ms. Huckle's concerns, but added: "But I wouldn't want the inference to be that we wouldn't consider any other types of sewage disposal." The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Donald Hansen, Chairman of the Albemarle Housing Coalition, addressed the Commission. His comments and recommendations included the following: --The name of the Committee should be changed to a Commission, given the long-term aspect of the proposal. --Housing uses more land than any other sector (except agricultural), and therefore environmental concerns are very important. 6-15-93 7 --At least 7-9 members should be appointed to the Housing Commission, with the make-up to include a private sector builder, a non-profit sector builder, a banking representative, a real estate representative, a legal and zoning representative, and a representative of a broadly based community organization, a church representative and a low-income family representative. --He expressed no opposition to the "more succinct" charter proposed by Mr. Johnson "as long as the intent of what we stated is followed." Continued Commission comment: Attempting to clarify what would be presented to the Board, Mr. Benish asked if the Commission had any objections to adding back in two sentences which had been inadvertantly omitted, one related to the proposed Housing Commission's status being on an equal level with the Planning Commission which would answer directly to the Board, and the other related to the County Attorney serving as the legal representative on the Commission. JOHNSON: He felt it would be inappropriate for the proposed Commission to report to the Board. He felt the Housing Commission should report to the Housing Coordinator. (Mr. Benish pointed out that the Housing Coordinator would be a staff position. He felt it was intended that the elected officials should have ultimate oversight of the Housing Commission.) Mr. Johnson felt this question should brought to the attention of the County Executive's Office. He felt the position of Housing Coordinator had to have "some authority" in order to be able to implement directives from the Board. He felt this was a county -wide problem, i.e. "We have a myriad of separate organizations, both privately and publicly funded, and each one thinks they're driving, and there isn't any central coordination which should result in a significant increase in efficiency and productivity." BLUE: He pointed out a difference in the appointment process between the two Commissions in that the Housing Commission will be made of persons with specific areas of expertise. HUCKLE: She noted that the Board of Supervisors should be the ultimate policy -setter because "this is all going to cost money and they are the ones who appropriate the money." JOHNSON: Regarding legal representative on the Commission, he felt the members should be "drawn from the list." Regarding the County Attorney serving on the Commission, Mr. Johnson stated: "The County Attorney will advise when asked, but to obligate him to be on here, we're making the cost of government higher and higher and we don't need to. V 6-15-93 8 If we can get an appropriate legal volunteer with legal background to participate on this committee free of charge --if something comes up the County Attorney can make a decision --but we don't have to pay him for it." HUCKLE: She was in favor of the County Attorney serving on the Commission because she felt having two attorneys involved could cause problems. Mr. Benish asked if the Commission had any objections to a representative from a "non-profit human services agency serving low-income clients and/or a low-income resident." (The Commission did not respond to Mr. Benish's question.) No action was taken by the Commission. Staff was directed to finalize the report based on the Commission's comments and present it briefly at a future meeting. Mr. Benish stated staff would incorporate Mr. Johnson's suggestions for a charter into the report (if there was no opposition from the Commission). No opposition was expressed. Mr. Blue expressed agreement with Mr. Johnson's recommendation that the "purpose" should reflect the Comprehensive Plan's definition. Mr. Johnson felt it was important to study how other areas have dealt with this issue, e.g. do they have a Housing Coordinator, how are they organized administratively? Mr. Johnson recognized Ms. Kobby Hoffman for her role in getting a rental rate adjustment by HUD. Neighborhood Three Stud - Mr. Benish introduced the topic and explained some of the background for the upcoming review process. Mr. Johnson made "general comments relative to the whole process." Those comments are attached to this record as ATTACHMENT A. He felt his proposal could eliminate a significant amount of time from the review process. Responding to Mr. Johnson's criticism of the process, Mr. Blue pointed out that this process had resulted in some valuable public participation which would not have been possible otherwise. Mr. Grimm agreed. Mr. Johnson did not take exception to Mr. Blue's and Mr. Grimm's comments. However; he stressed that the issues addressed in the report "already exist, already have been documented and already are given periodic reviews." He felt qs� 6-15-93 0 much more could be accomplished by "cross-referencing." He stressed that his main objection is to "creating a document which is repetitive." The Commission continued to discuss the process, with all Commissioners, except Mr. Johnson, being in favor of the existing review system. Ms. Huckle asked specific questions about: --The location of the public sewer ("how far does it go?"). Is there a plan for the line to be extended to the car dealerships area? --Will the County pay for the proposed sidewalks? She noted that in other jurisdictions sidewalks are paid for by additional taxes. --Is there any way to address the appearance of the backs of buildings (as they are seen from the river)? Referring to page 24, Mr. Blue could not recall having discussed the Pen Park Bridge in the detail shown in the report. (Mr. Baker explained that the information shown was taken from the Greenway Study.) The Commission took no action. Staff was directed to schedule another work session for continued review of this topic. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Johnson reported that he had attended a transportation meeting where a major concern had been that the "counties are not laying out plans for these accesses and entryways into the cities until too late." He felt the County is in no better shape in this respect than it was 10 years ago. He felt the most probable route for major accesses (for the next decade) should be planned for now. CIP Technical Committee - Mr. Johnson agreed to represent the Commission on this Committee. DB V. WaynX Cilimber" ecretary f�