HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 27 1993 PC Minutes7-27-93
1
JULY 27, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; and Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner. Absent:
Commissioner Johnson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
WORK SESSION
Neighborhood Three Plan
(NOTE: Mr. Johnson's comments, relative to the entire
document, are attached as Attachment A.)
Regarding landscaping along State Farm Blvd, Commission
comments and recommendations were as follows:
HUCKLE: She favored the use of trees as opposed to shrubs
because they provide shade and are less likely to obstruct
sight distance. She also suggested that local businesses be
responsible for maintenance of landscaping. (NOTE: Mr.
Andrew Drucopoli, representing the Worrell property, offered
to fund plantings in the median, but wanted the County to be
responsible for maintenance since the County is in a better
position to deal with VDOT. He did not think private
property owners should be involved in the maintenance of
landscaping.)
GRIMM: He suggested getting garden clubs involved in some
of the landscaping projects. (Ms. Andersen agreed.)
The recommendation related to a Monticello Viewshed Study
generated the most discussion. Comments and recommendations
were as follows:
NITCHMANN: He was strongly opposed to supporting a
recommendation for a viewshed study without any knowledge of
cost or the source of funding. He questioned why the County
would want to spend money to conduct a study on a
privately -owned property. He was also strongly opposed to
the "actionary" nature of the proposed recommendations
throughout the entire document. He pointed out that
documents such as this, with recommendations for various
studies and projects, continue to be developed without any
7-27-93 2
thought to the financial impact on the taxpayers. (Mr. Don
Wagner expressed support for Mr. Nitchmann's statements and
felt that the same could be said for other documents,
including the Comprehensive Plan.) Mr. Nitchmann felt that
it should be made clear, in every instance were expenditures
are involved, that County funding will be required. He
noted that it does not cost anything to get estimates from
consultants.
JENKINS: He felt that measures could be taken to protect
Monticello's viewshed, beginning now, without a study, e.g.
the development of simple guidelines related to building
facade, color, roofing materials, etc. Referring to Mr.
Nitchmann's concerns about funding, he suggested that there
should be a statement clarifying that the adoption of these
recommendations would require County funding.
HUCKLE: She wondered it was possible to use the study which
has already been done by Monticello. (Mr. Cilimberg
confirmed that the Commission could recommend the
utilization of the existing study. Mr. Grimm agreed with
this suggestion.)
GRIMM: He felt the "bulleted" items on page 22 were a good
place to start as minimum guidelines.
BLUE: He suggested dropping the recommendation to develop a
viewshed study (from the County's standpoint) but, at a
minimum, endorse the five guidelines listed on page 22
(which will involve no additional expenditures). (Ms.
Huckle agreed.) He noted: "Maybe County taxpayers should
not be funding the viewshed study as it has been described
here. Maybe Monticello should be doing that and all we
should be doing is trying to protect it with the information
we have now. If they develop this viewshed study and make
it available to the planning staff and planning commission,
then we'll use it."
Mr. Cilimberg attempted to summarize the consensus of the
Commission: "To focus on the use of the guidelines as a
guide for the development of Neighborhood 3 and that you
would not want to pursue, from the county's standpoint, a
viewshed study. You prefer that if Monticello wants to
pursue it on their own, to complete what they have already
done, they can come back to the County and ask that what
they've done at this point be adopted and it will be
considered then. You would take the emphasis away from
developing a study and put it on the use of the guidelines."
Regarding Mr. Nitchmann's concerns, he stated: "I do think
if we had some sort of ballpark figure --it'll cost so much
to complete the study that they have done --and this is the
good that it will do us, and if we had something to compare,
that does make sense and possibly then we might say 'Sure,
that's a reasonable investment."'
7-27--93 3
GRIMM: He suggested a statement at the beginning of the
document which would "address the need for a cost analysis
for any item involving funding." (It was later decided that
the wording for any recommendations involving possible
County funding would be changed throughout the document.)
Comments on the Rivanna Greenway:
ANDERSEN: She wondered if any thought had been given to the
possible use of prison labor for maintenance of landscaping
and the Greenway.
HUCKLE: She was opposed to the development of Reach 3,
except for the public boat launch (in the rural areas). She
felt the rural area does not need a greenway and people
would not be receptive to trespassers. (Mr. Blue was
opposed to this recommendation because he pointed out that
ultimately it is anticipated that the greenway will reach to
Milton, through the entire length of the neighborhood.
Commissioners Grimm and Andersen agreed with Mr. Blue.)
ANDERSEN: She was in favor of wording which will clarify
that there are ways of acquiring land other than through
purchase.
Historic Resources comments.
NITCHMANN: He felt this appeared to be a duplication of the
Historic District Ordinance which was developed by a citizen
group (and which the County has "put on a back burner" at
this time).
Sidewalks comments:
HUCKLE: She was opposed to a recommendation to fund the
construction of sidewalks.
ANDERSEN: She felt consideration should be given to the
future "use potential" of sidewalks.
BLUE: He felt it was premature to build sidwalks as this
time, but not premature to plan for their locations.
Bikeway comments:
NITCHMANN: He felt the statement "Provide, through signage,
a shared facility" should be clarified. He felt it was a
mistake for the County to encourage bike travel on heavily
travelled, dangerous roads. (Ms. Huckle agreed.) He also
felt the word "facility" implies a building rather than a
road.
The following was ultimately decided to be the consensus of
the Commission:
me
7-27-93 4
--Support for the five guidelines (page 22).
--Utilize the existing Monticello Viewshed Study and if
it is later determined that a more complete study is needed,
consider funding an enhanced study at that time after a cost
analysis of such a study has been made.
--Throughout the document, change any specific
recommendations for funding, i.e. change "fund" to "consider
the funding and development of...."
--No changes recommended to the section on Historic
Resources.
--No changes recommended to the Section on the Rivanna
Greenway.
--Include the words "through signage and stripping" in
the Bikeways recommendation.
--Forward the Neighborhood 3 Study (with above noted
amendments) to the Board for comment before scheduling
public hearing.
WORK SESSION
Solid Waste Plan
Ms. Joe Higgins, County Engineer and a member of the Solid
Waste Committee, explained the County's recycling program in
some detail and answered Commission questions.
Commission recommendations:
(See Attachment B for Commissioner Johnson's comments.)
BLUE: He noted that eliminating all property within
Albemarle County water supply watersheds effectively
eliminates half the county. He was concerned that this
might create problems when dealing with other counties on a
regional site.
HUCKLE: In relation to the location of incineration plants
(page 10), she was in favor of changing the distance from
500 feet to 750 feet. (Mr. Jenkins questioned whether the
Commission had the technical expertise to establish
distances.) (Given the fact that the Board has approved the
document, Mr. Grimm was in favor of no change to the 500
feet.) Ms. Huckle also expressed support for the passage of
returnable bottle legislation.
No action was required. It was the consensus of the
Commission to schedule the Solid Waste Plan for public
hearing.
WORK SESSION
7-27-93 5
Housing Report - Committees on Building Regulations and
Development Regulations
Mr. Cilimberg explained his memo of July 20, 1993, the
subject of which was the "Review of Ordinances for Barriers
to Affordable Housing."
It was the consensus of the Commission to support the
formation of a committee whose task it will be to review
ordinances in order to identify existing barriers to
affordable housing and make recommendations for possible
changes to the Code. (Item No. 1 in July 20 memo)
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing Piedmont Environmental
Council, addressed the Commission. Though he expressed some
initial reservations about the makeup of the committee under
consideration, after having discussed it further with Mr.
Cilimberg, he concluded: "I don't have an objection to
basically what is a homebuilder-initiated dialog with the
staff about certain concerns they have which I don't think
necessarily relate to affordable housing but to general
regulatory issues, and that there would not be a formal set
of recommendations coming out of that effort. I think if
that were to happen, there ought to be more involvement from
other interest groups. But I don't really have a problem
with what Wayne has described."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that
it be recommended to the Board of Supervisors that a
committee be formed to study existing ordinances in terms of
identifying barriers to affordable housing. The motion
passed unanimously.
It was decided that no Commissioners would serve on this
Committee. The Commission will be notified of meeting dates
and may attend committee meetings if they so desire. (Mr.
Cilimberg noted that this will be handled through the
Inspections Office rather than the Planning Office.)
No action was required on Item 2 of the July 20 memo.
Further discussion to take place at a later time.
Mr. Blue expressed concern about dealing with so many topics
in one work session.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:20 p.m.
5mi