HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 03 1992 PC Minutes3-3-92
1
MARCH 3, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, - March.3 , 1992, 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; Mr. Ron Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Senior Planner; Ms.
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Harry Porter, Univeristy
of Virginia Representative; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
February 11 and February 18, 1992 were approved as amended.
ZMA-91-13 Woodbriar Associates - Petition to update and
amend the conditions of the existing PRD zoning to allow the
use of private roads and revise the application plan to show
areas of future townhouse development in Briarwood.
Property, described as Tax Map 32G, Parcel 1 and Tax Map
32G, Section 3, Parcels A and 83, is located on the west
side of Route 29 North approximately one mile north of the
North Fork Rivanna River. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential
Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This
property is located in the Village of Piney Mountain and is
recommended for medium density residential (4.01-10 dwelling
units per acre.)
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to certain agreements with the applicant.
Ms. Huckle asked if the townhouses would have a separate
homeowners' document. Mr. Tarbell explained that it was his
understanding that there would be only one homeowners'
document, but an amendment would be attached requiring that
the homeowners in the townhouse sections (1B and 3C)
maintain the private roads. Ms. Huckle wondered how much
control those homeowners would actually have. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that often there is an "overall" agreement for an
entire development, with separate agreements for different
sections of the development.
Mr. Johnson asked why private roads were being requested.
Mr. Tarbell cited environmental considerations and also
referred to Section 18-36(b)(4) of the ordinance which
allows private roads if "such subdivision is not located
within a rural area of the comprehensive plan and such
107,
3-3-92 2
subdivision shall be into lots and/or units to be occupied
exclusively by residential structures other than
single-family detached dwellings including appurtenant
recreational uses and open space." Mr. Cilimberg added that
the State will not accept for maintenance those roads in the
townhouse area because of associated parking.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He
stated the applicant had no objections to the conditions
outlined by staff.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Larry Reynolds, a Briarwood homeowner, addressed the
Commission. He explained that currently the homeowners do
not have a majority of votes and cannot "control anything
which could be put at that point." He expressed concern
about the possibility that the homeowners' association, as a
whole, could be responsible for the maintenance of the
private roads. He wondered if the townhomes would have the
financial capability to maintain the private roads, given
their small number. (Mr. Bowling explained that the
homeowners' documents would specify which lots are required
to participate in the maintenance of the private roads.)
Mr. Wells also asked about provisions for play areas. Mr.
Tarbell pointed out the location of the play areas.
To address Mr. Wells' concern regarding maintenance of the
private roads, it was decided that condition No. 10 would
have the following added at the end: "...such maintenance
shall be the responsibility of the homeowners in Phases 1B
and 3C, respectively." [NOTE: After discussion later in
the meeting, the word "only" was changed to "respectively"
to clarify intent.]
Mr. Blue noted that he had received a call from a Briarwood
resident concerning the lack of completion of the roads on
Finch Court. He wondered if this approval could be
conditioned upon the completion of roads in prior phases
which have not been completed. Mr. Muncaster responded and
explained that the homes on the street are still under
construction and that completion of the roads has been
postponed so as not to subject the finished roads to
construction vehicles. He stated that all the homes are now
under roof so the roads should be completed shortly.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Muncaster
explained townhouses are being proposed to offer more of a
mix and satisfy market demands.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Muncaster to comment on the possibility
that the townhouse owners might not be able to afford the
maintenance costs of the roads. Mr. Cilimberg explained
that the number of townhouses which would be involved in the
/QS
3-3-92 3
maintenance of the private roads was not unusual for a
townhouse development.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson noted that he could support the request, with
the change in condition 10 (as stated previously). Mr.
Nitchmann agreed.
Mr. Johnson moved that ZMA-91-13 for Woodbriar Associates be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following agreements with the developer:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings subject to
conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of
various land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In
the final site plan and subdivision process, open space
shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots
approved. Primary recreation areas to be owned and
maintained through a homeowners association approved by the
County Attorney. Off-street parking and access shall be
limited to the recreational area shown on the Briarwood
P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan revised February
7, 1992 and the means to limit such access shall be part of
the site plan review.
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued in
any area until final site plan and subdivision approval for
that area has been obtained.
3. Albemarle County Service Authority verification of
adequate sewer capacity owned by Woodbriar Associates and
allocated to serve the Briarwood development before approval
of each phase.
4. All road plan and entrance plan approvals shall be
obtained prior to any final site plan or subdivision
approval. All roads shall be designed and constructed to
Virginia Department of Transportation specifications and
dedicated for acceptance into the State Secondary Road
System except the private roads shown on the Briarwood
P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan with a (PR)
label.
5. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater
except as is necessary for road construction as approved by
the County Engineer. Any lot which is unbuildable due to
slope shall be combined with a buildable lot and/or added to
common open space subject to Planning Commission approval.
6. Fire Official approval of fire protection system
including but not limited to: fire flow rates, hydrant
locations, and emergency access provisions. Such system
109
3- 3-92 4
shall be provided prior to issuance of any certificate of
occupancy in the area to be served.
7. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of plans for
water lines, sewer lines, pumping station, and manholes and
appurtenances which are to be constructed at the expense of
the developer.
8. Staff approval of recreational facilities to include:
One tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase 1B; the
dedication of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5
for the passive recreation area which shall include
construction of walking/jogging trails; and, the primary
recreation area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded
for its construction prior to final plat approval for Phase
6. This recreation area shall be built prior to completion
of Phase 6 and shall consist of a baseball/multi-purpose
field, two basketball courts, playground equipment, and
picnic facilities. All recreation facilities shall be
installed by the developer.
9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the southerly side of
Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and
along the westerly side of the entire length of Briarwood
Drive.
10. County Attorney approval of amended Homeowners'
Association agreements prior to final approval of Phase 1B
or 3C to include provision for maintenance of the private
roads; such maintenance shall be the responsibility of the
homeowners in Phases 1B and 3C, respectively.
11. Only those areas where a structure, utilities,
pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads, and other
improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other
land shall remain in its natural state.
12. No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous
development; the development shall proceed in the following
order: Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of Phase 7, 1A, 1B,
4, 5, 6 and 8.
13. Lots along Camelot Drive and St. Ives Road are to be
developed with single-family detached dwellings and shall
have a minimum lot width of 65 feet. All other lots shall
be developed with single-family attached units including
townhouses in Phases 1B and 3C.
14. Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for its entire
length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat
approval for Phase 1A. Briarwood Drive shall be completed to
its intersection with Route 29 prior to approval of Phase
1B. The eastern portion of Briarwood Drive through the
//G
3-3-92 5
commercial area shall be designed to Category VI standards
with a four -lane cross-section.
15. The mix of dwelling unit types shall be as shown on the
Briarwood P.R.D. Amended Application and Phasing Plan.
16. Site plan approvals for phases four and beyond shall be
contingent upon evidence that dwelling units in the earlier
phases have substantially met the County's goals and the
developer's assurances that moderate income housing has been
provided.
17. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with
Section 32.7.9.8 along the front of townhouse units which
constitute double frontage lots.
18. Administrative approval of future site plans and plats
to be in accordance with the Briarwood P.R.D. Amended
Application and Phasing Plan provided no waivers or
modifications of ordinance regulations are required.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Open Space and Critical Resource Plan - Consideration of a
plan consisting of text and maps which delineates major open
space systems in the County as a whole, and important open
space areas within designated Growth Areas. The purpose of
the Open Space Plan is to guide efforts to plan for and
protect open space for its environmental, aesthetic,
cultural, agricultural/forestal, and recreational value.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
Ms. Huckle called attention to the fact that page 6 states
"Forestal watersheds are generally a good source of high
quality water due to low sediment yields" but page 7 states
"Because surface drinking water supplies are currently
protected by regulations, further protection is not a high
priority of this Plan." Ms. Huckle felt the sentence on
page 7 should be removed because it gives the impression
that "you are not interested in protecting drinking water
impoundments." Later in the meeting Ms. Andersen expressed
this same concern and it was agreed that the sentence would
be removed.
She asked what could be done to protect the South Rivanna
Reservoir "from complete destruction of all trees and
understory that are holding the soils from drifting into the
reservoir." She reported that there had recently been
extensive clear cutting "at the Earlysville end of the
bridge over the reservoir on the left hand side." She asked
what could be done to prevent this type of activity. Ms.
Scala was unable to answer Ms. Huckle's question though she
sif
3-3-92 6
stated she had assumed that the reservoir, along with
streams, would be protected by the 100-foot buffer. Mr.
Keeler added that the Water Resources Protection Areas
Ordinance offers the greatest protection to the reservoir.
He suggested that Ms. Huckle make her concerns known to the
Water Resources Manager. Ms. Huckle felt that landowners
need to be better educated in terms of what "they can and
cannot do."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the problem identified by Ms.
Huckle is not one which the Open Space Plan can directly
address, though it can indirectly help such situations. The
issue is actually one related to the Runoff Control
Ordinance and the measures which the County has had in place
for some time and that is where the emphasis needs to be
placed.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the Runoff Control Ordinance
deals more with construction and that is not the case in
this situation because the dwelling has been in place for
many years.
Mr. Keeler suggested that a work session be arranged with
the Water Resources Manager so that he could explain the
workings of the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance.
He noted that the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of
ordinances dealing with water protection and erosion control
measures (i.e. consolidate them all in one place), not
create more.
Mr. Jenkins asked what action was required of the Commission
at this time. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commission
was being asked to "recommend the Open Space Plan to the
Board of Supervisors in some form, if possible." Mr.
Jenkins felt the document should receive more public input
before adoption.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Benish
explained that the document will exist as a separate
document until the next update of the Comprehensive Plan at
which time it will then become a part of the Comp Plan.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed support for the plan: Ms.
Sherry Buttrick, representing Citizens for Albemarle; Mr.
Tim Lindstrom, representing the Piedmont Environmental
Council; and Ms. Eleanor Santic. Their reasons for support
included the following:
--The Plan makes a first step towards protection of the
County's resources; (Buttrick)
--The Plan will lead to: the development of a Mountain
Protection District; a Critical Resource Inventory; and the
development of easements, PDR's, transfer of development
3-3-92 7
rights when they become available, and tax incentives to
protect agricultural and forestal lands. (Buttrick)
--The Plan offers to reconcile two potentially
irreconcilable differences, i.e. " the desire for economic
expansion and the desire to preserve the character and
quality" of the area. ( Lindstrom)
--The Plan was presented to the Commission several
months ago and the public has had sufficient time (9
months) to respond. (Santic)
The following persons expressed opposition to the adoption
of the Plan without further study: Ms. Yates Garnett; Mr.
Stephen Blaine, representing the Governmental Affairs
Committee of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association; and
Mr. Kevin Cox. (Mr. Blaine called attention to a letter
which was delivered to the Commission March 3rd in which he
described concerns about the plan.) Their reasons for
requesting further study included the following:
--Too much power is being given to the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority; (Garnett)
--"Suggestions" made in this Plan will next week
"become a law." (Garnett)
--The public should be made aware that "these things
are going to be legislated."
--This plan will make it very difficult for farming to
continue in the County;
--Many suggestions in the plan are "too strict and too
ridiculous for people." (Garnett)
--The Commission needs to study the document carefully
before passing it on.
--"A resource is what some of us live on." (Garnett)
--It is unclear how the Plan will effect landowners or
developers. "To be an effective planning tool, this plan
should be something that landplanners, environmentalists,
and officials can interpret and direct behavior in such a
way as to create the balance Mr. Lindstrom spoke of."
(Blaine)
--"The Plan talks a lot about preservation but not much
about planning." (Blaine)
--"Some of the recommendations will indirectly become
regulatory and it is the vagueness and non -specificity which
is of concern." (Blaine)
--"In particular the recommendations for implementing
the concept and composite plans in the site plan process"
are vague. (Blaine)
--In the case of administrative approvals by staff, the
Plan "would indirectly regulate and bring in preservation
rules that aren't currently recognized by the Board."
(Blaine) [NOTE: Mr. Blaine gave the following example.
"In the case of historic resources or woodlands which are
significant resources under this Open Space Plan --would, for
example, a developer or property owner who has a
discretionary plan, have to include those in the plan as
AS
3-3-92
S
open space? These recommendations suggest that they do so
that by the 'back door' we do have regulations."]
--"The recommendations do not contain positive
incentives for landowners or developers to create open
space." (Blaine)
--The inventory referred to in the plan is not yet
complete.
--The Plan "will continue to contribute to the trend of
regulatory expense added to housing in the area and
consequently housing costs." (Cox)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
To address a comment made by Ms. Garnett, Ms. Huckle asked
Ms. Scala to explain the function of the Public Recreation
Facilities Authority. Ms. Scala confirmed that the
Authority was created to "hold voluntary easements." Ms.
Huckle stressed that no one can be forced to place their
land in an easement. It was also clarified that if land is
placed in an easement it does not mean that the "public"
will have access to that land. Ms. Scala explained that the
Authority had been created to "hold" the easements created
in conjunction with Rural Preservation Developments. The
Board later authorized the Authority to accept other private
easement donations. Guidelines were developed to address
which easements would be accepted. It was stressed public
access is not a provision of the easements and they are
strictly voluntary.
Mr. Grimm expressed his support for the Plan because he
feels it is a "good summary of the things we are looking to
do in terms of development in the future and trying to
protect the resources that we have." It was his
understanding that the suggestions in the plan were
voluntary and that any by -right development would not be
effected. He perceived two new ideas in the plan: (1) The
suggestion, in the long term, for a mandatory cluster
development; and (2) The Mountain Protection District.
Mr. Johnson felt everyone had the same objective --"to
protect the environment and to protect individual rights."
Before proceeding with the Plan, he felt consideration
should be given to the following three factors: (1) The
need to study Mr. Blaine's written comments further; (2)
The economic impact in terms of the cost of land if the Plan
is implemented; (He referred to minutes of 7/31/91 in which
Commissioner Wilkerson had expressed this same concern.) and
(3) There are currently Supreme Court decisions pending
related to land issues which, if passed, will effect local
planning laws and philosophies dramatically. He did not
feel anything would be lost by delaying action on the Plan.
/i�
3-3-92 9
Referring to economic impact, Mr. Grimm did not feel the
Plan would result in further regulations. He felt that the
value of land in the County would continue to rise, with or
without the adoption of this Plan.
Mr. Blue felt this was "a classic example of public good vs.
private property rights." He stated that the county is
owned by many different people and, therefore, property
rights are very important. He agreed that if the Plan
results in a reduction in the amount of land available for
development, then property costs will increase "making it
less affordable for some people." He stated that if this
document is a statement of "worthy ideals for the County to
consider in planning" and is a first step in the process,
then it should be recommended to the Board for approval. He
continued: "On the other hand, if this is a back door
method of getting specific regulations in ... without
considering them individually, then I would be opposed to
it." He asked staff to elaborate on the next step in the
process, i.e. "If this Plan is approved by the Board of
Supervisors, is there any specific regulation which will
automatically kick in which will make it more difficult for
a developer or a landowner to utilize his property....?"
Mr. Benish responded: "This is a component of the
Comprehensive Plan which sets broad policies as to how you
evaluate the need for open space. It is not, in and of
itself, any regulation which is going to be back doored or
recommendations that are going to be back doored into
regulations." He stated that the document would be used as
a "policy guide for evaluating the impact of a request,
similar to the way the Comprehensive Plan is currently
used." He felt that probably the first recommendation
"where we outline in the short term how we utilize these
maps in evaluating discretionay plans (re -zonings and
special permits), we would rely on the maps as an indication
of what our efforts were in a particular area." He felt
this was the only thing which would take effect immediately.
Mr. Cilimberg added: "It can be assumed that there are
going to be a couple of particular items which are going to
be looked into if this plan is adopted --one will be looked
into even if it is not --the Historic District Board. One of
the things that will ... come in through the front door with
extensive public hearings will be the Mountian Protection
Areas approach. ... That could result from this plan's
adoption. But the application of the Plan in terms of
development is going to be ... like the application of the
Comprehensive Plan now. When we get a proposal for a
rezoning or a special use permit, we are looking at all of
the effects that that proposal might have on the
Comprehensive Plan in relationship to the Plan and we talk
to the developer about that. Many times developers will
proffer for certain things that the Comprehensive Plan calls
3-3-92 10
for .... This just adds to possible considerations in a
development proposal that is a discretionary one, i.e. that
involves a legislative decision of the Board of Supervisors.
In terms of site plans and subdivision approvals, there are
certain regulatory measures which are already there that, in
essence, support some elements of this Plan. Other elements
of this Plan are not supported through regulation, and we
are not proposing a regulation for in this Plan. We are
proposing that they be considered as an advisory
reference.... The other thing that we have definitely said
is that this plan is not intended to take away development
rights. We haven't proposed a reduction in rural area
development rights; we haven't proposed a reduction in the
developability of land within growth areas. What we're
trying to do is create that balance so that if we look at
individual sites, where we see some particular public
importance to the aspects of that site, we can work with the
developer for protection of those areas...."
Mr. Blue asked how this Plan would have effected the
Glenmore development if it had been in effect at the time of
its review since it is located on the Rivanna River.
Mr. Cilimberg replied: "I don't think, based on the
analysis that has been done with this concept map, that that
particular area, other than the Rivanna River and some
historic sites, has any other particular features that would
say 'Don't designate it as a growth area' based on that
map."
Mr. Keeler added that a main feature of the Glenmore plan
had been a consideration of environmental characteristics.
He recalled: "We were able to get more in open space on
that plan than is shown on these maps here." (Mr. Blue
interjected: "You're saying you don't need it.") Mr.
Keeler responded: "I think Mr. Blaine does make a point
there --we already have several regulations in effect." He
continued: "This plan could possibly have put into question
whether or not it was appropriate for him to use portions of
the floodplain for the golf course." All areas identified
as a critical concern, steep slopes, wetlands, etc, were
either in open space or the golf course area.
Mr. Keeler explained (for the Commission's information) that
he has directed his staff to apply the following three
considerations to any requests for amendments: (1) Effect
on housing costs; (2) Effect on the duration of the
development process; and (3) Effect on county staff time
and budget.
Regarding the Rivanna Growth Area (Glenmore), Mr. Benish
added: "The way that we evaluate comprehensive plan
amendments and rezonings has always taken into account a lot
of these resources. We have always done it on an individual
114,
3-3-92 11
basis and ...what we have essentially tried to do with this
Plan is front-end that evaluation in our designated growth
areas and our rural areas so that we have .identified what we
consider important and shown them on a map so that when
property owners and potential developers come in they know
up front what our concerns are. ... Given the evaluation for
the comp plan amendment for Rivanna, we looked at a large
area and number of sites and we took into consideration the
floodplains, critical slopes, historical sites, and historic
and scenic features. Essentially, this plan does that up
front."
Mr. Cilimberg, using the North Garden area as an example,
explained that the Open Space Plan will take some of the
"guess work" out of what staff is trying to do in the
Comprehensive Plan "big picture." (e.g., If these maps had
been available, the recommendation for the North Garden area
would probably have been different.)
Mr. Blue concluded that he would support this plan as a
"first step." He added, however: "I am concerned when the
second step comes along, how it is going to effect
individual property owners --not so much developers who will
know up front, but people who have owned their property for
a long time and have counted on it as being a part of their
retirement and it is possible that, with increased
regulation, we may be taking away some financial value from
them. I think that has to be done in some cases, but I am
very leery of doing it more than absolutely necessary for
the public good."
To address some of the concerns expressed, Mr. Johnson
suggested the addition of a sentence to the Overview on page
4, to the effect "It is not restrictive, but rather it is
informative with respect to development." He felt it would
be helpful to make it clear at the beginning of the document
that it is not intended to be a set of restrictions, but
rather is an information -type document. After further
discussion of Mr. Johnson's suggestion, it was finally
decided the following sentence would be added at the end of
the first paragraph on page 4: "It should be emphasized
that the recommendations resulting from this Plan (Part V)
are not intended to reduce density or development rights,
but instead assure that the developing environment
compliments important open space." (A similar statement
already existed on page 40 of the Plan.)
Mr. Keeler cautioned: "Mr. Blue, I don't want you to
misunderstand here. The Plan does call for us to write
regulations and bring them to you."
Mr. Blue responded: "I want you to understand that though I
support this Plan, I may vote against the regulations."
117
3-3-92 12
Mr. Nitchmann noted that he had had access to this extensive
document for only a very short period and had not had time
to study it or discuss it with the citizens of his district.
He expressed concern about the economic implications of the
Plan, quoting the following phrases from the Comprehensive
Plan: "...regulatory measures are necessary... feasibility
of regulatory measures with assistance of the public,
including historic property owners..." and from the Open
Space Plan: "...as well as regulatory measures can be used
to conserve these areas." He also expressed concern about
the fact that the maps have not been completed. He
concluded that he could not support passing the Plan
on to the Board of Supervisors without the completion of the
maps and without a better understanding of the implications
of the Plan.
Mr. Blue agreed that he shared some of the same concerns as
Mr. Nitchmann but he felt the Commission would have the
opportunity to pass judgment on whatever regulations may be
written. He felt the general recommendations were good and
it would be impossible to develop a perfect document which
would please everyone.
Mr. Blue moved that the Open Space Plan be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval with the two changes
suggested by Ms. Andersen and Mr. Johnson, i.e. the deletion
of a sentence on page 7 related to drinking water
(previously described in these minutes) and the addition of
the following sentence to the end of paragraph one, page 4:
"It should be emphasized that the recommendations resulting
from this Plan (Part V) are not intended to reduce density
or development rights, but instead assure that the
developing environment compliments important open space."
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins stated that though he was basically in support
of the document, he felt more public input was needed before
adoption. He concluded he would not support the motion.
Mr. Johnson suggested that if the Plan is passed and then it
is discovered that there is a lot of public opposition
(after press coverage), then the Commission could recall the
item. Mr. Bowling and Mr. Cilimberg explained that once an
item has been acted upon and passed on to the Board, only
the Board can send it back to the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann felt that further study should take place at
this point in the process, and to send it on to the Board
with the knowledge that more public input was going to be
needed, was just "skirting the issue."
Os�
3-3-92 13
Mr. Grimm noted that he was in favor of the document because
he felt it supported the Comprehensive Plan. He added that
any additional regulations would be considered on an
individual basis .
Ms. Andersen felt that more public input would come after
additional press coverage and that said input should play an
inportant part in the Board's final action.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with
Commissioners Nitchmann and Jenkins casting the dissenting
votes.
OLD BUSINESS
Recalling a recent request involving the Piney Mt. area, Mr.
Jenkins stressed the need for the County to perform a fiscal
impact study which would be helpful in the County's decision
making process. Mr. Cilimberg reported that one of the
proposals accepted by the Board in this regard was "to
initiate, through a committee made up of Board members,
Planning Commissioners, and citizen representatives, an
analysis of the fiscal impact of growth and development in
the County and refinement and work on an economic
development policy." He explained that the County
Executive's Office has developed a memo in that regard which
lays out a program to be pursued for analysis of the fiscal
impact of development. Mr. Johnson asked that staff make
sure the Board is aware of a report published in October
1990 dealing with this issue.
A Consideration of Sunset Avenue Fontaine Avenue Connector
Road - Discussion of the feasibility of development of a
proposed Connector Road between Sunset Road and Fontaine
Avenue as recommended in the Planning and Coordination
(PACC) Jefferson Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Study.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report
concluded: "Based on the consultant's analysis and staff's
evaluation of the alignment in the field, staff does not
recommend that a connector be constructed in this area."
This position was based on the following: (1) Environmental
impact; (2) Impact on the developability of the UREF
property and the remaining area in the corridor; (3)
Prohibitive cost to the County for the construction of such
a road; and (4) Proposed roadway would probably not be
useful in opening up undeveloped areas to development due to
the significant impact on these areas.
Mr. Bob McKee was present to represent the UREF property.
He offered no additional comment.
1®9
3-3-92 14
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Sunset Avenue/Fontaine Avenue
Connector Road, as identified in the JPA/Fontaine
Neighborhood Study, NOT be constructed as shown.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson expressed his support for the staff report.
Mr. Blue wondered where a north -south connector could be
placed if not in this location. Mr. Benish explained that
it was the feeling of the Committee that the issue of a
north -south connector still needs to be identified, but not
necessarily a connector.
The motion for deletion of the connector road passed
unanimously.
WORK SESSION - ZONING ORDINANCE - It was decided the work
session would be rescheduled.
Mr. Keeler asked if any Commissioners were adamantly opposed
to any of the proposed changes.
Mr. Johnson raised questions about: (1) The description of
speed bumps; (2) Provisions for mobile home parks; and (3)
Bonus figures related to low-cost, affordable housing. Mr.
Keeler noted that staff is considering the withdrawal of
bonuses for low and moderate income housing.
Mr. Blue pointed out that the picture of the speed bump was
mistakenly a "longitudinal section rather than a cross
section."
In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Keeler stated he
would point out all proposed changes which may potentially
be controversial.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Johnson asked about the following issues:
--What approach will be followed for the next CIP
review?
--Can a joint meeting with the Board and Commission be
arranged?
--Can staff present a brief report to the Commission on
actions taken by the Board, i.e. those items in which the
Commission has been involved?
3-3-92
15
--Can anything be done to improve the audio system in
the meeting room?
Mr. Johnson also suggested the adoption of a resolution
related to possible changes in the processing and
enforcement of zoning violations as follows: "Comments and
recommendations for improvements are requested from the
Zoning Division regarding (1) The lapse of time and efforts
required for County personnel to process a zoning violation;
and (2) Changes to zoning violation penalties to (a)
increase conformance to zoning regulations; and (b)
correction of zoning violations." (No formal motion was
made.) Ms. Huckle felt the Engineering Department should be
included also. Mr. Blue and Mr. Nitchmann indicated their
agreement with Mr. Johnson's concerns. Mr. Cilimberg offered
to invite Ms. Patterson, Ms. Higgins, and Mr. St. John to a
meeting to discuss this issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:45 p.m.
DB
%A%