Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 05 1993 PC Minutes10-5-93 1 OCTOBER 5, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 5, 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. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer. Absent: County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 21 were approved as submitted. (NOTE: An error in the date on the September 14 Work Session minutes was noted.) ZMA-9 -08 Feldmann's Inc. (applicant), Mark & L nnle Thornton (owner) - The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone approximately 1.9 acres from R-6, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 95 is located on the east side of Rt. 659 (SPCA Road) approximately 500 feet north of Rio Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 1) and is on the boundary of areas recommended for medium density residential (4.01 - 10 dwelling units per acre) and high density residential (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre. Deferred from the September 28, 1993 Commission meeting. The applicant was again requesting deferral to October 26, 1993. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that ZMA-93-08 be deferred to October 26, 1993. The motion passed unanimously. Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District which consists of eight parcels totalling 764.750 acres, located on the east and west sides of Rt. 20 North at Rt. 612. Deferred from the September 21, 1993 Commission meeting. Ms. Scala presented an amended staff report which identified and corrected errors contained in the original staff report. She added that both the Planning and Zoning staffs agree that the existing violation on the Bigelow property must be 10-5-93 2 corrected before action is taken on that portion of the district. She asked that the Commission take action on the remainder of the district (Worthington and Shaw -Kennedy properties) and postpone action on the Bigelow property "until such time as he has corrected his violation." Ms. Scala also noted that two additional applications had been received after the staff report --Cecil Gentry, 7.35 acres with one dwelling and Archibald Craig, 112 acres. It was her suggestion that Mr. Gentry's property be included in the action since he was present to answer questions. She stated the Commission might wish to delay action on the Craig property until staff has researched it more thoroughly. Mr. Blue asked why staff had not been aware of the rental properties on the Bigelow property at the time the district was formed. He commented: "The thing that bothers me about this whole issue of agricultural/forestal districts is that the people that join them are supposed to want to be protecting the environment and protecting agricultural interests and not want any more development. But they can't have it both ways. I just wonder if the Committee had known of the existence of the 7 rental units then, whether they would have accepted it." Ms. Scala explained that it is not uncommon for many farms to have "farm buildings/rental units." [Mr. Nitchmann noted that 8 rental units for farm hands for 178 acres is "a little ridiculous."] Mr. Blue felt all applicants for ag/forestal districts should be made aware that "building guest cottages and converting them to rental units is in conflict with the original intention of the AF District, or else I have misinterpreted it." Ms. Scala explained that the properties which have existing "non -conforming rental units" at the time of application, are allowed to continue, but any units added after the approval of the district would have to comply with the rules. A limitation on the number of allowable units has never been discussed. Explaining options available to Mr. Bigelow, Ms. Scala noted that the subdivision of 21-acre parcels is not prohibited within an AF district and this is another option for dealing with the violation. (The new dwelling would have to be on a separate parcel.) Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the issue of whether or not pre-existing rental units should be a factor in the consideration of a parcel's inclusion in an AF District should be addressed by the Ag/Forestal Advisory Committee. He noted that subdivision lots (i.e. those lots which are within a developed, residential subdivision) have always 7% 10-5-93 3 been viewed as being inconsistent with AF Districts. (NOTE: Later in the meeting Mr. Blue pointed out that "technically, any division of land is a subdivision" so there ought to be some other definition rather than not being in a subdivision."] Mr. Blue felt there were a number of persons who would like to have the benefits of an AF District without being willing to accept the "responsibilities" which go along with it. Mr. Cilimberg felt it would have to be considered on a case -by -case basis since there are some major farm operations which have a number of employees residing on the property. Ms. Scala stated it was her intent to add a section to the application form which will require listing the number of existing dwelling units. Ms. Huckle suggested that applicants be required to sign an affadavit attesting to the accuracy of the application form. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the rental income produced by eight dwelling units would probably exceed the income from the farming operation, "so why should it be in the Ag/Forestal District in that case?" Mr. Blue felt one of the main advantages to the AF District is the lower tax rate. He noted there has been a lot of recent discussion about cutting back on land use taxation in all but AF Districts. Those persons (who are eligible for land use) would then be getting a benefit that others do not, and "then it would be even more important to be sure that they were using that responsibly, i.e. it is not just a method of avoiding taxes but they are really a bona fide agricultural enterprise." Ms. Huckle suggested assessing a fine from persons who don't comply with the rules of the District. (Ms. Scala explained that is already provided for in the Zoning Ordinance.) Mr. Johnson pointed out that the County has no system for accurately identifying the number of rental units that exist anywhere in the County. He felt there was a way this could be done using the 1040 tax forms. Regarding the Craig application, Ms. Huckle expressed no concern about including it in the Commission's action. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Cecil Gentry addressed the Commission. He asked that the other participants in the District not by penalized because there is a problem with one member. /9/ 10-5-93 4 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Ms. Scala confirmed that any parcels which are added after the approval date will be subject to the same time period as the rest of the District. Ms. Scala also noted that the present request was for 10 years, as opposed to 8 years which was the duration of the previous approval. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District be approved as presented by staff, to include the following properties, Worthington, Shaw -Kennedy, Craig and Gentry, but excluding the Bigelow property. The motion passed unanimously. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Ms. Scala confirmed she would bring the issue of number of allowable rental units before the Advisory Committee. CONSENT AGENDA Pasture Fence Mountain Ag/Forestal District - Consisting of three parcels totalling 623.04 acres, located on Pasture Fence Mountain west of Mount Fair off Rt. 756. North Fork Moorman's River A Forestal District - Consisting of four parcels totalling 260.48 acres, located west of Brown's Cove. Addition III to Sugar Hollow A Forestal District - Consisting of 55.79 acres being added to two parcels already in the district, located on the west side of Rt. 810 near Rt. 811. Addition III to Kinloch A Forestal District - Consisting of one parcel of 3.811 acres, located on the east side of Rt. 231 near Cismont. The Commission was being asked to refer the applications to the Advisory'Committee. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved as presented. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-93-05 Victoria Burton - Petition to rezone 18.5 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential (proffered). / 49 10-5-93 5 Property, described as Tax Map 32C, Section 3, Parcel 2 is located south of and adjacent to the existing Deerwood Subdivision. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Industrial Service. REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSIDER NEW INFORMATION. Staff reported the applicant had withdrawn the application. No action was required. CIP -P BLIC HEARING Mr. Baker introduced the topic. He explained changes in the priority list and attached comments which were the result of the Commission's work sessions. Mr. Baker distributed a copy of a letter from Mr. Bruce MacCall related to the WAHS - Henley Middle School Underground Crossing. Comments, both by the public and the Commission, on specific items were as follows: ADA Mandated Projects (6 projects ranked at Priority 1 - Total $1,283,055): JOHNSON: Referring to Comment No. 3, he suggested that the Commission recommend that these projects be funded at $450,000/year over a four-year period. The Commission agreed with this suggestion -and it was agreed Comment No. 3 would be amended accordingly. Mr. Johnson suggested the addition of a column showing the amount actually requested, along with a column showing the recommended funding for this year. (He suggested that the sub -total under "Amount Requested" show $450,000, with the grand total for the 4-year period being shown in some other fashion.) HUCKLE: She felt that parks and recreation projects should not be of "equal priority" with school projects. She noted that "children are required to go schools; no one is forced to go to a park." She felt schools should be prioritized above schools. She pointed out that the cost of the ADA Schools Compliance is $573,000. She wondered if that should be done in one year with the remaining projects spread out. JENKINS: He felt the scheduling of the projects should be left to the ADA Committee. BLUE: He agreed with Ms. Huckle, but noted that all the ADA projects are of equal priority (1). 10-5-93 6 It was noted that the Commission was leaving the decision of which projects should be completed first to the ADA Committee. BLUE: He expressed concern about voting for something which is "essentially breaking the law," i.e. not doing the ADA projects in the time required. (Mr. Nitchmann felt the date deadlines were not "hard, fast rules" as long as there is intent to proceed as rapidly as possibly. Mr. Benish explained that spreading the projects out over a four year period means that "we won't become illegal until the end of the four year period.") Mr. Blue accepted Mr. Benish's rationalization. Comment No. 14 JOHNSON: He suggested that the topic of road projects be included in this comment. Comment No. 5 HUCKLE: She felt "borrowed funds" should not be used on maintenance and repair items. (Mr. Johnson suggested that a sentence be amended as follows: "Maintenance and repair should not be in competition with new construction.") Mr. Blue and Mr. Nitchmann recalled that it had been the consensus of the Commission that maintenance and repair projects did not belong in the CIP at all. Berkmar Drive North Ext. and Waterline (Priority 21) and Zan Road Extension (Priority 34) DON WAGNER (public, representing the North Charlottesville Business Council): He felt the completion of these items would alleviate traffic problems on Rt. 29, particularly during the Rt. 29 improvements period. He encouraged the Commission to place the items as high on the priority list as possible. JOHN NUNNELLY (Rt. 29 business owner): He encouraged a high priority for the Berkmar Drive North Extension because not only will it improve traffic flow in Rt. 29, it will also reduce the chance of accidents. Ms. Higgins explained, in detail, the history, the status of, and the funding process for, these projects. She felt that the Zan Road project would be of "limited benefit". She noted that it was 95% within the City and that the project was concurrently before the City. JENKINS: He suggested the Zan Road project be placed at the bottom of the list. Based on his understanding of Mr. !q,� 10-5-93 7 Wagner's comments, he noted: "When you get it built it doesn't go anywhere." (Ms. Huckle agreed.) BLUE: He felt the Zan Road project had some merit if there was a possibility it would connect to Hydraulic Road. (Ms. Higgins pointed out that this project was "just to connect the shopping center with the cul-de-sac at Hillsdale Drive." Mr. Benish and Ms. Higgins felt there was little chance of a connection to Hydraulic because of the significant environmental impact to Meadow Creek.) Based on the fact that the project did not include a connection to Hydraulic, Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Jenkins that it should be a very low priority. GRIMM: He felt Zan Road might offer an alternative route (other than Rt. 29) for residents of the Carrsbrook, Woodbrook, and surrounding neighborhoods. Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road (Priority No. 18) HIGGINS: She explained that she felt this project should be a lower priority than the Berkmar Dr/Waterline project (No. 21) since there is much more pressure to complete the Berkmar Drive project and it is possible to complete it this year, whereas the Avon/Rt. 20 project could not possibly be completed this year, even if completely funded. The Commission agreed to reverse the ranking of these two items. Old Brook Asphalt Path -'Engineering (Priority 38 PAM STARLING (public, President of Field Brook Homeowner's Association): She asked that the construction of this project be moved up to 1994 and be given a higher priority. She felt this was a community safety issue since this path is used daily by children and senior citizens. (Mr. Baker explained this project had been given a low priority by staff because of low traffic counts, exclusion from the Pedestrian Obstacle Study and the roadway is wide with a walkable grass shoulder. Ms. Starling pointed out that the section of most concern is not walkable --between Rio Road and Greentree.) NITCHMANN: He suggested.this was a good opportunity for a community to do some fundraising on their own. (Ms. Starling felt the homeowner's association would be willing to do some fundraising, but asked that the County assist by facilitating the land acquisition.. She noted the property needed is not owned by community residents.) ! 9-5� 10-5-93 8 B o sville Expansion a o' t - schedule for "out years" DAVE VAN HOLT (Crozet Community Association): He strongly objected to the fact that an expansion of Brownsville (12 additional classrooms) would call for a redistricting of Crozet Elementary School to fill those additional classrooms. (Mr. Blue called attention to Comment No. 2 which explains the Commission's decision not to rank school -related projects. He suggested that Mr. Van Holt's comments would be more appropriately addressed to the School Board. He stated that the Commission cannot satisfy the problems of re -districting.) TOM LOACH (President, Crozet Community Association): He supported Mr. Van Holt's comments. He suggested that the boundaries of Crozet need to be clearly defined. TOM TREVILIANS (Crozet resident): He supported Mr. Van Holt's Comments. He felt the psychological effect of redistricting on children should be a consideration. He suggested the old Crozet School building be renovated to handle increased enrollement. (Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the Crozet citizens should make their concerns known to the Board of Supervisors and should also be prepared to make suggestions as to possible solutions.) Chris Green Lake Property Purchases Priorities 12 and 13 GRIMM: He suggested that a comment be added explaining why these projects are given this high priority, (using Mr. Mulaney's letter as a basis for justification). BLUE: He recalled that comments had been requested from the RWSA and the ACSA as to whether or not they feel these properties are necessary for the protection of the water supply. He noted that the request is not coming from the water supply use, but rather from the recreational use. JOHNSON: He recalled that the reason for placing the projects.at this priority was to "bring it to the attention of the Board who then would be able to get these inputs and decide." He noted that if this is a limited opportunity to purchase this land, the appropriate authorities should review it and make a recommendation to the Board. BLUE: "Unless there is a demonstrated need beyond what Mr. Mulaney's memo has shown, I don't think it ought to be a high priority...." 10-5-93 9 HUCKLE: She agreed with Mr. Blue. She also noted that if it is a water supply protection project, it is the responsibility of the ACSA and not the County Capital Improvements Program. [Mr. Benish suggested that the items be removed from this high priority (possibly placed at the bottom of the list) with a note attached to bring them to the attention of the Board. The Commission agreed.] WAHS-HenleyMiddle School Underground Crossing (The Commission discussed a letter received from Mr. Bruce MacCall, Chair of the WAHS PTO Committee to recommend a course of action for the safe crossing of students between the two schools.) ANDERSEN: She reminded the Commission that a student had been struck by an automobile last year while crossing between the two schools. Various ways of addressing this problem were discussed, e.g. an overhead crossing, crossing guards, school buses, and a stop light. BLUE: "In my opinion, if it's something that the schools have to have --they have to have these crossings of kids like this --then it's got to be safe and we've got to spend the money, whatever it is." He indicated he understood the problems with an overhead crossing (ARB review, ADA requirements, etc.), but he felt the "liability would be just as risky underground as aboveground." He felt the $120,000 figure was "optimistic." NITCHMANN: In response to Mr. Grimm's question as to whether or not it should be moved into the list of ranked priorities, Mr. Nitchmann stated he did not think it should be included in the ranked priorities, but rather a Note No. 15 should be added telling the Board that the Commission has discussed the item and feels it should be given top priority during their consideration of school funding issues. (The Commission agreed with this recommendation.)• Ricky Road Drainage(Priority No. 9 Ms. Higgins answered questions about the urgency of this project. She explained it has been on the CIP list for many years. She was not aware of any damage that has occurred as a result of.this project not being done. HUCKLE: "Maybe if nobody has suffered from it, maybe it's too high on the priority list." (No support for Ms. Huckle's suggestion to change this ranking was expressed.) 9� 10-5-93 GENERAL COMMENTS: Funding NITCHMANN: He was in favor of a comment expressing the Commission's recommendation that funding should be based on "real money and not fictitious money that doesn't exist." He explained: "We should start out with money that's really there, not borrowed money, not money that we're putting in there in case we get a Meadow Creek Parkway, but real money that comes from the general funds available for CIP improvements." BLUE: He suggested Note No. 14 could be amended to address Mr. Nitchmann's concern. BAKER: To address Mr. Nitchmann's concerns, he suggested a note to the effect "that consideration be given to spreading out the costs for all projects so we can get further down the list." (Mr. Nitchmann was in favor of this recommendation.) Process NITCHMANN: "I think we have come a long way in the approach we are taking to the CIP process over the last two years and I would hope that in the next evolution of this process, after we can get together with the Board and the County Executive's Office, we can refine amounts requested and how much involvement we as a Planning Commission should have in recommending how much should be funded for each one of these projects. Certainly, I think the costs of the projects has some impact, at least mentally, on where you can rank something. ..." He again expressed the belief that the funding of education projects should be part of the school budget so that County citizens will have a better understanding of the full cost of education. He also expressed concern about transportation issues because most projects are funded with borrowed money. GRIMM: "I believe what we're looking at is a desire to have a little more communication with the Board in the early stages of working with the CIP to determine approximately how much money we are going to be dealing with and how that could be best utilized." It was agreed Note No. 14 would be amended to add Mr. Nitchmann's concerns about the funding process and about transportation projects. It was agreed that the fourth sentence of Note No. 5 would be amended as follows: "Maintenance and repair should not be in competition with new Projects." 11 10-5-93 SUMMARY: Mr. Baker summarized the Commission's recommendations as follows: --Note No. 3: Recommend spreading the cost over a four-year period, expending approximately $450,000/year. --Replace "borrowed funds" with "new projects." --Note No. 14: Add road projects and a recommendation to establish a method for using real money vs. borrowed money. (Mr. Blue felt there was a better term to use than "borrowed money" since borrowed money is real money.) Mr. Benish offered the following wording: "Discuss changes in the CIP process, particularly as regards methods for identifying available funds for CIP projects, school projects, transportation projects, etc." --Add a Note recommending that funding should be spread out so that more projects can be funded. --Special consideration should be given to the underground passageway between WAHS and Henley. --Add a Note recommending that the Commission's highest priority is for the first 19 projects and that the Commission strongly urges that the funds be allocated such that they receive funding in this fiscal year. (He felt this would specify to the Board which items the Commission feels deserve funding, without actually specifying dollar amounts for these projects.) --Priorities 12 and 13 to be moved to the bottom of list. --Move Avon/Rt. 20 project to priority 21; move Berkmar/Waterline project to priority 18. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that the Capital Improvements Program for 94-95 through 98-99 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors as presented by Staff with the following changes:. --Note No. 3: Recommend spreading the cost over a four-year period, expending approximately $450,o00/year. --Replace "borrowed funds" with "new projects." --Note No. 14: Add road projects and a recommendation to establish a method for using real money vs. borrowed money. "Discuss changes in the CIP process, particularly as regards methods for identifying available funds for CIP projects, school projects, transportation projects, etc." --Add a Note recommending that funding should be spread out so that more projects can be funded. --Special consideration should be given to the underground passageway between WAHS and Henley. --Add a Note recommending that the Commission's highest priority is for the first 19 projects and that the Commission strongly urges that the funds be allocated such lqf 10-5-93 12 that they receive funding in this fiscal year. --Priorities 12 and 13 to be moved to the bottom of list. --Move Avon/Rt. 20 project to priority 21; move Berkmar/waterline project to priority 18. The motion passed unanimously. CPA-93-04 Community Facilities Plan - Solid Waste Management Section - Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan to include the Solid Waste Management Section. The purpose of this section is to serve as a guide for solid waste management activities in the County. Commission comments: Referring to the section entitled "Landfills" beginning on page 4, Mr. Johnson suggested that the use of the word "shall" be changed and the criteria reworded so as "just to identify the consideration." He felt the use of the word "shall" allows no "latitude or option." He clarified that the proposed wording reads as though the criteria are mandates rather than considerations. Referring to page 10 and the siting of incineration plants, Mr. Johnson questioned whether a limitation of "no closer than 500 feet from any existing or planned residence" was a far enough distance. (Mr. Blue suspected that the figure had been taken from State Code. He also thought it was probably possible to build an incinerator within 500 feet which would have no physical impact, though it may have a psychological impact, on residents. ) The possibility of increasing the distance to 2,500 feet or 5,000 was suggested. Some Commissioners felt it would be impossible to locate any site in the County which would qualify. Mr. Johnson suggested language to the effect that "consideration will be given to the location...." Commissioners Blue and Grimm expressed the opinion that the 500 feet should remain. Mr. Grimm pointed out that the wording says "no closer than 500 feet," so the 500 feet is the "bottom end" and it would probably be greater than that. There was no consensus to change the figure. Referring to "Inert Landfill", page 10, Mr. Johnson pointed out a grammatical error in a sentence. It was agreed it should read: '"The State requires that contaminated inert waste XA be dumped at the domestic landfill." Vise 10-5-93 13 Referring to the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 1, Mr. Blue suggested the addition of the words "for the County" at the end of the sentence. Mr. Blue pointed out that two recommendations --(I) that landfills should not be located in an Albemarle County Watershed area, and (2) that the life of the Ivy Landfill should be extended --are a "strong contradiction" to each other since the Ivy Landfill may be contaminating an Albemarle County water supply. He stated: "If we really believe it is that dangerous, we ought to close up the Ivy Landfill and move it somewhere else. He continued: "I'm not convinced that there should never be a landfill in a water supply area; I think it depends on the circumstances. There is no way I an going to convince the members of this Commission that we should take that statement out, but I think we should think about it a little bit. We're saying contradictory things." Mr. Baker explained that the document attempts to establish criteria by which property will be rated, and if a piece of land is in a water supply watershed, it will be scored lower than those outside watersheds. Mr. Benish added that, based on the criteria, property within a watershed area would be considered only after every other possibility has been explored. He felt the emphasis was clear, i.e. "to look elsewhere first." To address concerns that this might not be totally clear, Mr. Benish offered to add additional language to the effect that because of economical considerations, we are encouraging the continued use of the existing landfill, but recognizing that it is inconsistent with existing policies. Mr. Blue felt the way it is written says that property within water supply watersheds will not even be considered. Mr. Johnson felt it was just a matter of wording. It was suggested the wording "Consideration of the location within a watershed should be given a high priority" was preferable. Mr. Blue concluded: "I still see the dichotomy -- we make a real concerted effort to try and extend the use of the Ivy Landfill, which I think is right, but then we ought to understand what we are doing." Mr. Jenkins noted: "The only reason I have any reservation about it is that somewhere else in the County --if, in fact, the potential exists for contaminating water supply, whose water are we contaminating now, if not ours? We have just as much responsibility to our neighbors as to ourselves. We listen to these 'not in my backyard' people everyday and then we turn around an put it in our own document. I have a problem with that." n^ I 14 10-5-93 There was determined to be no public comment. It was agreed that all the "shall bets" would be changed. MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that CPA 93-04, the Solid Waste Management Section of the Community Facilities Plan, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff with those changes noted above. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Albemarle County Fair (reviewed by the Commission previously) Mr. Johnson recalled that the applicant had made a statement that "we will surface treat the roads." Mr. Johnson had contacted Mr. Roosevelt (VDOT) to asked "if, irrespective of County approval a party can go ahead and start repaving his roads." Mr. Roosevelt had replied "absolutely not," explaining that an applicant would have to "get our permission, and if we give our permission, it will be to State standards." Mr. Roosevelt had also stated that it was his understanding that additional right-of-way would be required in order to bring it to State standards. Mr. Johnson stated this issue had been ignored in the Commission's review. He felt that the expense involved in meeting State standards would have caused the the withdrawal of the application. AHIP Report_ - In response to Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Benish stated they had just submitted a status report to their Board and he intended to request that that status report be "redone" for the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. V. Wayne/Cilimbepqfecretary DB 10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15) 1 OCTOBER 5, 1993 - WORK SESSION The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a Work Session on Tuesday, October 5, 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. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development and Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development. The Work Session began at 5:15 p.m. Growth Area ExRansion Stud The question before the Commssion was that of growth area expansion. Staff explained that the Board was requesting that the Commission "look at the big picture of all the possibilities and to advise them, accordingly," on two specific CPA's which the Commission has already acted upon: CPA-92-05 for Towers Land Trust and CPA-92-02 for South Fork Land Trust. (The Commission had previously recommended approval of Towers and denial of South Fork.) In addition, the Board "would like (the Commission) to look at the whole report in full and comprehensively come back with a recommendation." Mr. Benish presented the staff report. Commission comments: JOHNSON: "Growth in some form is necessary, but I submit that growth management can be to establish an environment which supports development by the private sector and does not necessarily mean that you have to designate a specific area by dictate. Historically, we have not experienced overwhelming success in the development of our growth areas. The success has been as a result of a very few major developers. I'm suggesting that this should be a consideration, not just by this Commission, but that this is a major subject to be taken up with the Board in what we identified previously as a philosophical review of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. I would like to see the Commission go on record again as requesting such a meeting with the Board as soon as possible because these are coming up time and time again. I'll mention an example of what I'm referring to as to whether or not this designation of growth area vs. another method of setting up an environment within which the private sector can operate and choose their own growth area. No. 1 - We're not going to put infrastracture in any growth area; if it's there now, h^ 2 10-5-93 (Work Session 5:.15) 2 fine, but we can't afford to do it. .. No. 2 - Actual experience in one of the developmentshere is that area was purchased by the developer at $3,500/acre. The developer took a risk but with tentative, verbal support of the Board. He then made the application for the appropriate zoning. The developer was then, ultimately, able to sell the property for $250,000 to $350,000/acre and with the (profit) he was able to put in the necessary infrastructure. I think this is an example that needs to be seriously considered by both the Board and the Commission together as to how we want to approach this growth area, because once we go ahead and designate it, the price goes from $3,500/acre to $20,000, $30,000/acre." JOHNSON: Referring to a recent change in the Code in relation to affordable housing: "If we set up an environment in which the private sector can appropriately, efficiently and economically operate, then prior to designating a growth area, developers can come forth with preliminary site plans which can be reviewed and within those preliminary site plans, I believe we do have the authority to address a percentage, or location or availability of affordable housing. Affordable housing is defined as that which does not cost more than 30% of annual income." JOHNSON: "If what I've stated seems like it might have some substance, then with respect to the two applications before us, I think we have a prime example where the developer has decided it is economically feasible for him to operate there. He has taken the lead and it's not just going out and designating area on the 'if come."' If the Board can, prior to taking the final action for rezoning, get a preliminary site plan, not binding but with his ideas and what he intends to do, then that would give a much better basis upon which to accomplish the rezoning. In the case of the Towers, I would be in favor of that for reasons I have just stated." Regarding the South Fork request, he felt it could be postponed until the Board has made its decision on the Meadow Creek Parkway or could be approved "pending disapproval of the Meadow Creek Parkway by the Board." He concluded: "I think both of these qualify ... for a developer determining that it is economically feasible and desirable for him to proceed now. The only thing I think would be lacking is a preliminary site plan." BLUE: He expressed disagreement with much of Mr. Johnson's remarks. He felt the development referred to by Mr. Johnson in his beginning remarks (Glenmore) had created a lot of controversy because it was a "leap frog" from existing utilities to a rural area relatively far out. He pointed out that the developer bought the land and then "bribed the County" by offering to pay for the extension of the infrastructure. He felt it had created a lot of problems at 10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15) 3 that time, but it did seem to have turned out all right. He felt it was the role of the Planning Department to prevent that sort of situation. He did not agree that growth area designation alone drives up the cost of land excessively. He felt the County could do a better job of planning where infrastructure can and should be extended. He also noted that designation of growth areas offers some guarantee to the public that if they choose to live outside growth areas they can be reasonably sure they will not be in an urban area. He felt the approach currently being followed was the correct approach rather than letting the market define where growth areas will be. BLUE: ,It seems to me in good planning we ought to be trying to expand out from our urban areas along the natural routes of gravity sewer whenever possible. ... Why do we keep pushing out 29, where, even if we go with this tonight and I voted for it before (i.e. Towers Land Trust), we're pushing over the drainage area. Everything there has got to be pumped and we're either going to have to put in bigger pumps or put in a long gravity sewer. Going south and northeast of town the infrastructure is easily extended with gravity sewer and fairly good roads and we have the other advantage of not adding to the traffic burden on 29. ... We ought to be, instead of just stripping up 29, thinking about expanding out and keeping the urban area a little more compact. It seems to me that might be good planning and might be worthy of more consideration." Mr. Johnson felt the differences in his and Mr. Blue's approaches might be cause for an overall review with the Board of "how we approach this thing." However, he did not think the two pending applications should be delayed. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the question of transportation will have to be addressed if Towers and South Fork requests are approved. HUCKLE: "I an thoroughly in favor of having growth areas and am happy to see that growth has been taking place in growth areas. I think we really need to bite the bullet on this transportation thing. We have seen what happens with the Meadow Creek Parkway, where if development takes place first, before the road, then people don't want the road. ... We need some parallel roads. How can we make sure there will be roads and we won't be back in the same predicament of having opposition to roads which are needed." She suggested waiting until "there are enough applicants to chip in on this road and prove that there is a need for it rather than going at this backwards." GRIMM: He expressed agreement with Mr. Blue's comments regarding the concept of a growth area. "As representatives of County government we need to provide some leadership in 10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15) 4 determining where the growth areas should be in order to provide eadfor That'seople who want to what planning is allnabout,and do the development. There were brief comments about the sewer service to the northern part of the County and the lack of sufficient water to run the water treatment plant. Because of the possibility of pumping water from the river, Mr. Blue again stated that he felt it was very important that the Board make a firm decision as to whether or not Chris Green Lake will ever be used as a reservoir. It was Mr. Blue's opinion that it is highly unlikely that Chris Green Lake will ever be used as a water supply "and all we have available is what's in the river." Mr. Grimm agreed it was important this decision be made. Ms. Huckle felt the use of Chris Green Lake should not be "foreclosed" because it is "a very important ace in the hole." Mr. Blue did not think it would make much difference in the event of a severe drought because if other sources are dry, Chris Green will be drying up also. JOHNSON: He suggested that before discussing the issue of growth areas at length comments should be sought from developers given the fact that they will be expected to help finance the infrastructure. He asked the question: "How are we going to accommodate growth if we can't (afford) the infrastructure? (Mr. Grimm agreed costs would have to be shared by the County and developers.) JENKINS: He pointed out that the County has been going through this same exercise for 20 years and "the rural areas have been fussing about the tax rate to support this growth." HUCKLE: Referring to an area along Rt. 20, Ms. Huckle asked if it wouldn't be "more logical" to develop that area since it has access to water and sewer and is in close proximity to Interstate 64. (Mr. Blue recalled that the Board of Supervisors had declined to make that area a growth area twenty years ago because of the belief that Rt. 20 "wasn't designed for that kind of traffic." Mr. Benish confirmed that the biggest constraints are road access. (Mr. Johnson felt the constraints of Rt. 20 "were nothing when compared to the roads in the northern area.") NITCHMANN: "Before this growth thing goes forward, in some future sessions, I think we certainly need to have some discussion on the expansion of the growth area on 250 East. Then you get the expansion of the urban ring situation which continues to grow out from the center." -:�74 to 10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15) 5 geg immendatiQRs_ It was agreed more work sessions would be needed to study the growth area question. Mr. Johnson suggested that staff develop a schedule for work sessions which could be sent to the "appropriate authorities" so that they can offer their input. Action on CPA's BLUE: "I would be relatively comfortable with recommending what we had before with the exception thaat hate to ow Creek Parkway is slightly different now ... I j usetch them out. On the other hand, even with the Towers, your argument sounded good to me that we already are going to have to do something togouroriginal could go ahead and support recommendation on the Towers Land Trust without gettinga oravinvesointo a that pickle, so to speak, that we end up approving requires more utilities than we are able to provide. I think we ought to do a lot more study. I agree we ought to have some experts here on both transportation and utilities to help us decide on the whole thing on the growth areas, but I, frankly, don't know how I feel about what we should do about the Towers now. I have already decided once and voted in favortfit thatand I woulddmake melnk I changeave my mindnabout anything tonight that." Mr. Johnson expressed interest in changing the action taken on South Fork "since there has been some discussion of Meadow Creek and see if we couldn't recommend approval on i the assumption that the Meadow Creek Parkway Mr at area will not be approved by the Board. (Mr. Grimm questioned the ability to make that assumption.) Blue qu licant since how Mr. Johnson's suggestion would help the app "he could still be hanging on for years e while we felt the are fussing about the Meadow Creek Parkway." of the Meadow Creek Parkway should be finalized before taking action on the South Fork request. Mr. Nitchmann questioned the boundaries shown on the map. Staff explained this was furtherasstart" and the Commission could adjust them after In relation to Towers, Mr. Nitchmann asked "if the experts have fully covered the utiity aspect, consideration of roads, future school needs, etc." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that none of those issues have been ignored. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann tmthedthat Board ofA-92-05for SupervisorsTforrs Land Trust be recommended o � U1 6 10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15) approval and that CPA-92for ofSthehMeadowCFork reek Parkway Trust be deferred until the resolution question. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: � estion, Mr. Cilimberg stated In response to Mr. Johnson's applicant intended to present a it was his understanding the apP Mr. Cilimberg full site plan at the time of the rezoning. interpreted it was the Commission's intent that either or a planned development be offered. proffered plan felt that was iline with the applicant's plans. It is at that time that the Board and e5omn►ransportationsion will aandtpublicsatisfy their concerns about utilities, services. HLTCKLE: "Let the record show that I still feel this is premature until the utlealsconsiderationMaster Plan lcompletely is given en to the finished and until some transportation problem. I think we would be making another irresponsible mistake to add more growth to the area which it's unable to manage now. Mr. Nitchmann stated he might feel that way too if not for the fact that the property is already contiguous to a growth area and is a naturaltoextension to fightthat downarea. the road"Those are once battles we are going see site plans, ect. „ wa we'll ever get adequate roads out GRIMM: The only Y en an other there is through development. It won't road in a way; it never does. We cannot pay wilderness." stated motion passed (5:2) with Commissioners The previously votes. Huckle and Jenkins casting the dissenting Mr. C' limber 's Summa JL- aaiv.L, R commendat'on o the oa d sals within the context of the "You looked at these 2 propotaken overall Growth Area report and your r �ervingnanyscommentsaon on that knowledge, but Your question until after the full growth area expansion is hearings. You want to additional work sessions athepdesignation of growth areas as address the philosophy roach, transportation adequacy, opposed to some other aPP ortunity for utility expansion; cost efficiency, and the opP and you want to get input on transportation and utilities as well as possible developer comments." (The Commission confirmed this was accurate.) The work session ended at 6:50 p.m.