Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 12 1993 PC Minutes10-12-93 1 OCTOBER 12, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 12, 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. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning. Absent: County Attorney. The Chairman called established that a September 28, 1993 WORK SESSION the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and quorum was present. The minutes of the meeting were approved as submitted. Albemarle County Service Authority,/ 1993-1998 Capital Improvements Program Mr. Bill Brent was present to describe his CIP and to answer Commission questions. (Mr. Don Wagner, a member of the ACSA Board of Directors, was also present.) Answers to specific questions were as follows: --It is anticipated that all projects planned for the 93-95 period and the 95-98 period will be completed. --It is anticipated the Woodbrook sewer line (i.e. the gravity sewer through Carrsbrook) project will take place sometime in the 95-98 period. The line will extend to the Kegler's property and as property to the north developers it will be up to individual developers to install the line. --Regarding service potential to the area north of Airport Road (the Camelot area), the existing water treatment facility is capable of treating 2,000,000 (2 million) gallons of water/day. It currently withdraws water from a small intake structure on the North Fork of the Rivanna River at the plant, but can only withdraw 800,000 gallons/day (worse case) at that point. Chris Green Lake was constructed to be a future water source for that treatment plant. He could not answer what he described as the "political question" of whether or not Chris Green would "revert back to its intended purposes," though he felt this question would have to be addressed very soon, probably within this Comprehensive Plan review period. The RWSA is going to have to make decisions soon on the future of the Camelot Treatment Plant, i.e whether to spend money to bring it into compliance with new Federal regulations. It was his personal feeling that "under no circumstances should that plant be abandoned" because once a source of water is 10-12-93 2 established it is "foolish to give it up." However, another option is to pump water into the Camelot Treatment system from the water plant that is at the South Rivanna dam because the two systems are tied together. There are presently no definitive plans for extending service further up 29 North, other than to make the determination about how to supply the water that is needed to supply the existing water treatment plant and this will require that a decision be made about the future use of Chris Green Lake. --He was not aware of any current problems with existing "central water systems" though he stated that these systems are a "nationwide" problem. Many small systems are finding it financially impossible to satisfy new drinking water regulations. There are presently 30 independent water systems operating in Albemarle County, and most are in very remote areas where it would be very difficult to address problems if they should arise. (Ms. Andersen noted that Peacock Hill is presently having problems with low flows and are "not getting regular water." Mr. Brent did not know what was causing these problems.) The Clinton Administration is proposing to introduce legislation which would prohibit the development of any future small water systems and is attempting to set up "safety nets" to bail out the small systems when they fail. --Studies are currently being done to determine how many more connections can be made without Buck Mountain. Rivanna °WSA is in the process of hiring an Engineering Firm to begin the ir&-ial permitting process for the Buck Mountain Reservoir. (This process takes approximately 10 years.) --Regarding the impact of the two parcels of land near Chris Green lake which are presently under consideration for purchase, Mr. Brent felt that to "try to buy all the property around Chris Green was not affordable and probably not practical." However, he felt it was important to determine if it was going to be a water source so that watershed protection measures could be applied to the area. He confirmed that he did not feel the two parcels in question, because of their locations, would be significant to Chris Green's watershed. --Regarding the guidelines for determining whose responsibility it is to build a line (ACSA or RWSA, he explained that once those projects were completed which the RWSA, at the time it was created by a four -party agreement between the City, the County, the ACSA and the RWSA, was originally given responsibility for, the agreement said that "Rivanna would undertake other projects as mutually agreed upon between the parties to the contract (i.e. the City and the ACSA)." "Since the City and the ACSA pay Rivanna's bills, any new project that mutually benefits or effects both the City and the Service Authority, the funding of that project is negotiated between the City and the Albemarle County Service Authority. We agree on how Rivanna is to fund it, how much the City is going to pay and 9/0 10-12-93 3 how much the Service Authority is going to pay. If it benefits both the City and ACSA, then it would definitely be a Rivanna project; if it benefits just the Service Authority, then the Service Authority is going to have to pay for it and it might as well show up as an asset on our books as an asset on Rivanna's books. ... The water situation is different. We can make an improvement in the County that the City will benefit from indirectly. If that benefit is just incidental, then it is unlikely we will get any participation from the City." In response to Ms. Huckle's question about Mr. Wendall Wood's contribution in relation to the airport sewer line, Mr. Brent explained: "A few years back Mr. Wood went to the Board of Supervisors and offered to build that line to the airport in exchange for a rezoning that he wanted. He didn't get his request and we didn't get the sewer line. Within a few years the airport was in a situation where their septic fields had failed and the only spot left for expansion of the septic field was in a spot with soil worse than they were already using, and the field they were using was only five years old. The airport had to have to sewer. After about two years of negotiations between the Service Authority and the airport, an arrangement was made whereby Mr. Wood agreed to build the sewer line to the airport; the Service Authority funded it and received a payment for a large portion of that sewer line from the Airport Authority. Mr. Wood underwrote a large cost of that project by doing the work with his own forces below market costs. So we were able to obtain the sewer line in that fashion. It was publically bid; Mr. Wood bid on the project at an artifically lower rate and the project was awarded to him and it was completed in that fashion." Ms. Huckle asked: "But he did get some compensation for his work?" Mr. Brent: "That's right." "The airport paid for the cost of the section to the airport. They paid a lesser price due to the fact that a developer, whose property much of the line crossed, artifically bid the line to recognize the benefit that he was receiving." Mr. Blue asked: "There was no agreement ahead of time, was there, that he would bid a lower price and make a contribution?" Mr. Brent: "There was a contact between the airport and the Service Authority, laying out the relationship between the two; the airport would pay the Authority to construct the line and the airport had an agreement with Mr. Wood which acknowledged that he would construct the line at a mutually agreed upon price." He confirmed this took place "before the bid." Mr. Brent continued: "The contract stated that if somebody else bid the line cheaper than Mr. Wood proposed to bid it, then there was no further...." (Mr. Brent did nto end this sentence) He confirmed the process followed was public knowledge, explaining: "The advertisement for bids stated 'United Land Corporation will submit a bid of $273,000.' There certainly was no intention to deceive anybody." 10J/ 10-12-93 4 --Regarding the extension of the water line to Glenmore, Mr. Brent explained that had been beneficial to the ACSA because the developer, under ACSA rules and regulations, was required to provide utilities that would serve his development at his cost. The developer was also required to build the sewage treatment plant at his cost. He had no concerns about the procedure which had been followed. Regarding the size of the water line, he explained: "In order to get a pipeline that is large enough to supply the fire protection that is needed in Glenmore and Stone Robinson School .... the pipeline is also large enough to serve other areas." The system can be enhanced with storage tanks and pumping systems. Mr. Blue asked: "Between Westminister Canterbury and Glenmore, as more land is designated as growth areas, would that pipeline be sufficient to supply it?" Mr. Brent: "Yes it would." Mr. Blue: "So even though we know there was an agreement that it will not serve anything else (other than Glenmore), it was sized to be handle it." Mr. Brent: "It is capable of handling additional growth, but it was sized to specifically serve Glenmore." --The 4" waterline to serve Oakhill will offer some fire protection and it is felt that "a little fire protection is better than no fire protection." --ACSA will be repaid by RWSA for the design work for the Scottsville Sewage Treatment Plant. ACSA had available funds and therefore "advanced" funds to RWSA. --Project priorities are determined by public need, e.g. failing septic systems or water systems. --The ACSA cannot require connection to a water or sewer line if the existing system is functioning satisfactorily; but a connection fee and a monthly "non -users service charge" will be charged. --The Farmington system is currently being upgraded and once it is compatible with the Service Authority's system, ACSA will take it over. ACSA is not spending money to upgrade Farmington's system, but the improvements to the Farmington system will be of benefit to the ACSA. --Regarding planning for future growth areas, he confirmed that it is beneficial to the ACSA (in terms of borrowing money) to extend lines to both sides of Rt. 29. --In response to the question "Do you prefer the growth areas to go south, or 29 North," Mr. Brent responded: "If you go in two directions, that's fine; don't go in six directions all at once.... We can't do everything at once." Mr. Johnson expressed amazement that the budget of the ACSA was 15 to 20% more than for the entire County. He wondered: "Who's doing what to whom that you can be so successful at getting this amount of money through the delivery of services and the County, according to the information we have, is 15% to 20% less, without going into debt." 10-12-93 5 Mr. Don Wagner spoke briefly and praised Mr. Brent for his performance. He felt the success of the ACSA was due in large to Mr. Brent's leadership and to an excellent staff. WORK SESSION Subdivision Ordinance - Review of Proposed Major Revisions Mr. Keeler explained the status of the review procedure, to date. Because of the lateness of the hour, the Commission did not discuss the revisions but did comment on the format of the proposed revisions. Concerns were expressed because Commissioners had found it impossible to compare the proposed ordinance with the existing ordinance. (Mr. Keeler pointed out that his memo of September 2 had highlighted the major changes which were made. Some Commissioners could not recall the memo to which Mr. Keeler referred. Mr. Blue did aknowledge the memo, but stated that it had not been as detailed as he had would have liked.) It was ultimately decided staff would: (1) Re -draft the proposed ordinance to add notations which will reference sections of current ordinance from which new sections are taken; (2) Prepare an "executive summary" of any significant changes, additions or deletions, particularly those which will effect the cost of development, whether increases or decreases, and how this proposed ordinance relates to other ordinances; (3) Prepare a work session schedule where the ordinance will be discussed, page -by -page. (First work session to take place after discussions with Site Review Committee are complete.) (4) Re -distribute copies of Mr. Keeler's September 2 memo. Ms. Huckle expressed disappointment that the proposed ordinance did not address the "problems that we looked at the other day." (It was unclear what "problems" Ms. Huckle was referring to, but later in the discussion she made reference to the fact that plats do not show the placement of driveways or structures on lots.) She called attention to an article which had appeared in the October 9, 1993 edition of the Times -Dispatch in relation to a lawsuit over a "shrink -swell" issue. According to Ms. Huckle's understanding of the issue, the County (Chesterfield) had lost the case because they had not enforced their zoning laws through proper inspections, etc. She concluded: "Unless you have things spelled out in various different ordinances that make it perfectly clear to people who is supposed to do what, the County could find itself on the wrong end of a lawsuit." Mr. Cilimberg was familiar with 0/5 10-12-93 6 the suit referred to by Ms. Huckle. He explained: "The rezoning that occurred, established through proffers --something that was supposed to happen --and it was testing for shrink -well --didn't say anything about whether or not you could turn a building permit down based on it. The proffers did not have anything regarding application on site development and enforcement. They simply said shrink -swell testing was to be conducted. It was a proffer. It was not in the ordinance. So what has happened is an argument over what that really meant." Ms. Huckle concluded: "So let's not have any question about what anything means in our ordinance, please." Mr. Jenkins felt Ms. Huckle's request was "an unrealistic goal," because staff cannot possibly anticipate all possibilities. Mr. Keeler agreed that Ms. Huckle had a legitimate concern and stated that what is needed is a mechanism for establishing who will be responsible for inspections, etc. and he was not sure that could be addressed through this ordinance. Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, distributed a prepared statement to the Commission. (She did not read the statement into the record.) She explained that PEC is very interested in the "Procedure" section and are presently working with members of the private sector on a re -draft of that section for the County's consideration. Other specific concerns about such issues as private roads will be addressed at later work sessions. Forest Lakes South - Request for reduction in setback required under Section 5.1.16(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler explained that Forest Lakes South is requesting a reduction in setback in order to be able to locate the swimming pool apron 33 feet from the property line of the Hollymead school. He explained the "action requested (of the School Board) was to authorize the School Board Chairman to sign a temporary construction easement allowing Forest Lakes Associates to access Hollymead School site to fill, grade, seed, plant, and install a storm sewer in the area between the baseball field and Forest Lakes and to generate a letter saying that the School Board has no objection to Forest Lakes locating the pool apron 33 feet from the property line." Though the letter from the School Board had not yet been received, Mr. Keeler stated it was his understanding the School Board had no objection to the Forest Lakes request. In answer to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that provisions will be taken to protect 0)4 10-12-93 7 the adjoining property owner (Farenholt) from drainage problems. Staff assured the Commission they would make the Engineering Department aware of the Commission's concerns about drainage onto the Farenholt property. MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Forest Lakes South request for a reduction in setback be approved. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Andersen made reference to an article entitled "Dr. Ellen Silbergeld bridges troubled waters," (The Bulletin Fall 1993) which deals with Baltimore's problems with an incineration plant and hazardous wastes. She asked that the article be made a part of the record. (Attachment A) ARB Responsibilities - Mr. Johnson distributed a memo to the Commission (Attachment B) outlining his concern about the ARB's lack of authority for building and structures being reconstructed, altered or restored on Entry Corridors. He feels this is a "significant hole" in the Ordinance and felt it was important to correct this situation. He noted that with'the improvements being made to Rt. 29, he felt "changes would proliferate." He was in favor of the Commission passing a "Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to correct this omission of responsibility of the ARB." Because some Commissioners (at a previous meeting) had expressed the desire for comment from the ARB before taking action of Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Cilimberg noted that an ARB staff member will be present at the October 25 Commission meeting to discuss Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Mr. Johnson concluded: "No matter what the ARB wants to do, if we think it ought to be done, then I think we ought to do it." City -County Planning Commission Meeting - Mr. Grimm reported on this meeting. Topics discussed included the City's survey process, the formation of a Committee (and later a public forum) to work with the answers concerning the "visioning aspect" of the questionnaire survey. This process was to be completed by March, 1994, after which the Comprehensive Plan Review would begin, to be completed by the first quarter of 1995. Mr. Johnson expressed reservations about being driven by the City's schedule. Mr. Johnson also expressed concern about the City's apparent reluctance to make the questionnaire available to Commissioners prior to its distribution. Mr. Johnson noted the fact that the consultant hired by the City (Dr. Guterbock- • - ) had not read the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Blue expressed concern because there had been mention of topics such as community 10-12-93 8 leadership and spirit, but not about traffic, water and sewer (though these were added later). Mr. Blue pointed out that the City's main focus would likely be on social issues whereas the County's would be on growth issues. Mr. Johnson was skeptical that a survey could be developed which would have meaningful results. ChaRter 15.1. Chanter 11. Code of Virginia - Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission could be provided copies of this part of the Code. He noted there had been recent changes which relate to "affordable" housing. The Commission requested the following of staff: --More information on possible change in available CIP monies (Johnson); --Status report on Noise Ordinance (Johnson); --Status report on discussions with VDOT re: private roads (mountainous vs. rolling standards) (Johnson); --Copies of City's survey questions. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. . , V. Wayn Cilimb , Se etary DB aG/40,